Colorectal cancer screening with blood-based biomarkers: cost-effectiveness of methylated septin 9 DNA versus current strategies

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Detection With Blood-Based Tests: Qualitative Study and Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Population Preferences

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly form of cancer, inducing an estimated 1.9 million incidence cases and 0.9 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite the availability of screening tests, their uptake remains suboptimal. However, blood-based tests that look for signs of cancer-specific markers in the body are increasingly available as an alternative for more invasive tests for cancer. Compared with existing tests, the benefits of blood-based tests for CRC include not needing pretest preparation, stool handling, and dietary or medication restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the population's preferences for CRC screening tests, with a focus on blood-based tests, and investigate the factors influencing test uptake.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods approach, combining semistructured interviews and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify salient attributes for CRC screening tests. These attributes informed the design of the DCE survey. The DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit and mixed-mixed multinomial logit models.

RESULTS

Qualitative findings from 30 participants revealed that participants preferred blood-based tests due to their perceived low risk, minimal pain, and ease of sample collection. However, concerns about the test's lower accuracy were also expressed. The DCE survey was completed by 1189 participants. In the mixed logit model, participants demonstrated a stronger preference for blood-based tests over a 2-day stool-based test. The mixed-mixed multinomial logit model identified 2 classes, strong supporters and weak supporters, for CRC screening. Weak supporters, but not strong supporters, had a higher preference for blood-based tests. Women, ethnic Chinese, and people aged 40 to 60 years were more likely to be weak supporters. Both models highlighted the high influence of cost and test sensitivity on participants' preferences. Transitioning from a 2-day stool-based test to a blood-based test, assuming a national screening program at a base price of Singapore $5 (US $3.75), was estimated to have the potential to increase the relative uptake by 5.9% (95% CI 3.6%-8.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings contribute to our understanding of CRC screening preferences and provide insights into the factors driving test uptake. This study highlights the perceived advantages of blood-based tests and identifies areas of concern regarding their accuracy. Further research is needed to determine the actual increase in uptake rate when blood-based tests are made available.

The common bisulfite-conversion-based techniques to analyze DNA methylation in human cancers

DNA methylation is an important molecular modification that plays a key role in the expression of cancer genes. Evaluation of epigenetic changes, hypomethylation and hypermethylation, in specific genes are applied for cancer diagnosis. Numerous studies have concentrated on describing DNA methylation patterns as biomarkers for cancer diagnosis monitoring and predicting response to cancer therapy. Various techniques for detecting DNA methylation status in cancers are based on sodium bisulfite treatment. According to the application of these methods in research and clinical studies, they have a number of advantages and disadvantages. The current review highlights sodium bisulfite treatment-based techniques, as well as, the advantages, drawbacks, and applications of these methods in the evaluation of human cancers.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test may increase screening participation. However, blood tests may be less effective than current guideline-endorsed options. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers blood tests with sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%. In this study, we investigate whether a blood test that meets these criteria is cost-effective.

METHODS

Three microsimulation models for CRC (MISCAN-Colon, CRC-SPIN, and SimCRC) were used to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening (from ages 45 to 75 years) compared to no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with an FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The CMS coverage criteria were used as performance characteristics of the hypothetical blood test. We varied screening ages, test performance characteristics, and screening uptake in a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Without screening, the models predicted 77-88 CRC cases and 32-36 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals, costing $5.3-$5.8 million. Compared to no screening, blood-based screening was cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600-$43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). However, compared to FIT, triennial stool DNA testing combined with FIT, and colonoscopy, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT remained more effective (+5-24 QALYG) and less costly (-$3.2 to -$3.5 million) than blood-based screening even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.

CONCLUSION

Even with higher screening uptake, triennial blood-based screening, with the CMS-specified minimum performance sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 90%, was not projected to be cost-effective compared with established strategies for colorectal cancer screening.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative.

DESIGN

Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups.

RESULTS

We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05987709.

Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened

Importance

Despite recommendations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 60%. Liquid biopsy tests are in development for cancer early detection, but it is unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liquid biopsy, liquid biopsy following nonadherence to colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test. Adherence to first-line screening with colonoscopy, stool DNA, or fecal immunochemical test was assumed to be 60.6%, and adherence for liquid biopsy was assumed to be 100%. For colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test, patients who did not adhere to testing were not offered other screening. In colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid, liquid biopsy was second-line screening for those who deferred colonoscopy. Scenario analyses were performed to include the possibility of polyp detection for liquid biopsy.

Exposures

No screening, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA, liquid biopsy, and colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Model outcomes included life expectancy, total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained.

Results

This study used a simulated cohort of patients aged 45 years with average risk of colorectal cancer. In the base case, colonoscopy was the preferred, or cost-effective, strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28 071 per life-year gained. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had the greatest gain in life-years gained but had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $377 538. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had a greater gain in life-years if liquid biopsy could detect polyps but remained too costly.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, and the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a first- or second-line screening strategy was not cost-effective at its current cost and screening performance. Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if their cost is substantially lowered.

Health Economic Evidence and Modeling Challenges for Liquid Biopsy Assays in Cancer Management: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer-derived material circulating in the bloodstream and other bodily fluids, referred to as liquid biopsies (LBs), has become an appealing adjunct or alternative to tissue biopsies, showing vital promise in several clinical applications.

PURPOSE

A systematic literature review was conducted to (1) summarize the current health economic evidence for LB assays and (2) identify and analyze the studies addressed or reported on the challenges of health economic modeling in precision medicine.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and the University of Melbourne Full Text Journal databases from 1 January 2013 to 16 September 2022. Included papers were selected if they were economic evaluations and/or budget impact analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included and analyzed, with the majority being full economic evaluations (n = 19, 79.2%). Four studies (16.7%) were health and budget impact analyses, and one study (4.1%) incorporated both an economic evaluation and a budget impact analysis. Cohort-level modeling techniques were the most common approach (n = 16; 80%). LB technologies were cost-effective in 15 studies (75%) considering different biomarkers, cancer types and stages, and economic analyses. These studies evaluated LBs for screening and early detection (66.7%), treatment selection (26.7%), and monitoring treatment response (6.6%). Budget impact analysis results were varied among included studies, with the majority of studies (n = 4; 80%) reporting either cost savings, minimal, or modest budget impact, while one study (20%) reported LBs as an efficient strategy. The reviewed studies often inadequately reported or addressed modeling challenges, such as patient-level processes, the combination of tests and treatments, preferences, and uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

LBs could provide a cost-effective approach for treatment selection in lung cancer and aid in the screening and early detection of other cancers, including colorectal, gastric, breast, and brain cancers. This is in comparison with various alternatives, such as the standard of care (SOC) and no screening scenario. However, it is important to mention that in some comparisons, LBs were used in combination with SOC instead of replacing it. Importantly, few studies have pointed toward LBs' cost-effectiveness for monitoring treatment response. Most health and budget impact analyses, especially those focused on lung cancer, suggest potential cost savings or a minimal-to-moderate budget impact. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to ascertain their effectiveness across various stages of lung and colorectal cancer, as well as to address potential modeling challenges.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022307939.

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.

Progress in the field of noninvasive diagnostics for colorectal cancer: a systematic review for the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for detection of advanced pre-cancerous lesions

BACKGROUND

Early detection of pre-cancerous adenomas through screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. Fecal immunochemical tests are commonly used, but have limited sensitivity for pre-cancerous lesions. Blood-based screening may improve test sensitivity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for detection of advanced pre-cancerous lesions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We present the accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for the detection of advanced pre-cancerous lesions. EMBASE, Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched, with study populations limited to adults diagnosed with advanced pre-cancerous lesions at colonoscopy, who had a blood-based biomarker test analyzed with reports of sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

69 studies were identified, which assessed 133 unique biomarkers sets. The best performing test was a panel of 6 miRNAs, with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 90% for advanced pre-cancerous lesions. Only 6 biomarkers demonstrated sensitivity ≥ 50% and specificity ≥ 90% for the detection of advanced pre-cancerous lesions.

CONCLUSION

Many different blood-based biomarkers have been assessed for detection of advanced pre-cancerous lesions, but few have progressed beyond the discovery stage. While some biomarkers have reported high sensitivity and specificity, larger prospective studies in unbiased intended-use screening populations are required for validation.

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.

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.

Extracellular Nucleic Acids in the Diagnosis and Progression of Colorectal Cancer

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease that usually shows no evident clinical symptoms in the early stages, often leading to late diagnosis. Over the past few years, a new approach based on liquid biopsy has gained far-reaching applications in less-invasive CRC diagnosis and management, allowing for the use of extracellular nucleic acids as promising biomarkers to detect CRC at an early stage and monitor disease recurrence. That is why an up-to-date review and discussion of in-depth liquid biopsy-derived DNA and RNA biomarkers is essential. We hereby offer an overview of known predisposing genetic factors for developing sporadic and hereditary CRC, and an extensive repertoire of available extracellular DNA/RNA molecules with their potential clinical applications and shortcomings. Our review may be of value to experts dealing with CRC at the molecular level as well as to clinical professionals aiming for a better understanding of state-of-the-art techniques in CRC diagnosis and management.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most common malignant neoplasm worldwide, with more than two million new cases diagnosed yearly. Despite increasing efforts in screening, many cases are still diagnosed at a late stage, when mortality is high. This paper briefly reviews known genetic causes of CRC (distinguishing between sporadic and familial forms) and discusses potential and confirmed nucleic acid biomarkers obtainable from liquid biopsies, classified by their molecular features, focusing on clinical relevance. We comment on advantageous aspects such as better patient compliance due to blood sampling being minimally invasive, the possibility to monitor mutation characteristics of sporadic and hereditary CRC in a disease showing genetic heterogeneity, and using up- or down-regulated circulating RNA markers to reveal metastasis or disease recurrence. Current difficulties and thoughts on some possible future directions are also discussed. We explore current evidence in the field pointing towards the introduction of personalized CRC management.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n = 40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

Increasing uptake of colon cancer screening in a medically underserved population with the addition of blood-based testing

BACKGROUND

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the United States is suboptimal, particularly in medically underserved populations due to significant barriers to care. Unique accessible, low-cost, and non-invasive screening tests for this population could greatly benefit current rates. In this article, we assess patient preference and the impact of offering a blood-based test on screening rates in a cost-free health fair setting from April 2017 to April 2019.

METHODS

Participants who met colorectal cancer screening eligibility criteria set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force were recommended to attend the colon cancer screening station. Those participants who elected to attend were offered various, accepted screening methods, and if they declined, were offered alternative blood-based testing. Screening rates, test outcomes, and the rate of follow up completion of colonoscopy were measured and compared with historic screening outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1401 participants who were recommended to attend, 640 (45.7%) participants were evaluated at the colon cancer screening station, of whom 460 were eligible for testing. Amongst these, none selected colonoscopy, 30 (6.5%) selected fecal immunochemical testing, and 430 (93.5%) selected blood-based testing. Only 2 participants returned the fecal immunochemical tests. In the blood test cohort, 88 were positive and 20 received a follow up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this assessment, blood-based testing is an effective method to increase screening rates in medically underserved populations, though efforts to further improve access to follow up colonoscopy are necessary.

Epi proColon® for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Profile of Its Use in the USA

Epi proColon^® is a blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test that presents a convenient, non-invasive option for CRC screening in average-risk adults aged ≥ 50 years who are otherwise non-compliant to guideline-recommended screening programs. The Epi proColon test involves the use of a real-time PCR assay to detect methylated Sept9 DNA (a biomarker for CRC) in plasma derived from a whole blood sample. Epi proColon generally performed well in prospective clinical trials, having non-inferior sensitivity for detecting CRC compared with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Microsimulation modeling supports annual Epi proColon testing, as for FIT. Although the Epi proColon test specificity is lower than that of a FIT, the Epi proColon test may be useful for improving participation and compliance in CRC screening, as evidenced in a small randomized controlled clinical trial which showed that uptake of an offer of an Epi proColon blood test was significantly higher than that for a FIT in subjects who were overdue for CRC screening.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Methods

The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG.

Results

Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

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.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Tailoring Screening to Predicted Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Decision Analytic Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Global increases in colorectal cancer risk have spurred debate about optimal use of screening resources. We explored the potential clinical and economic impact of colorectal cancer screening tailored to predicted colorectal cancer risk.

METHODS

We compared screening tailored to predicted risk versus uniform screening in a validated decision analytic model, considering the average risk population's actual colorectal cancer risk distribution, and a risk-prediction tool's discriminatory ability and cost. Low, moderate, and high risk tiers were identified as colorectal cancer risk after age 50 years of ≤3%, >3 to <12%, and ≥12%, respectively, based on threshold analyses with willingness-to-pay <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Tailored colonoscopy (once at age 60 years for low risk, every 10 years for moderate risk, and every 5 years for high risk) was compared with colonoscopy every 10 years for all. Tailored fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)/colonoscopy (annual FIT for low and moderate risk, colonoscopy every 5 years for high risk) was compared with annual FIT for all.

RESULTS

Assuming no colorectal cancer risk misclassification or risk-prediction tool costs, tailored screening was preferred over uniform screening. Tailored colonoscopy was minimally less effective than uniform colonoscopy, but saved $90,200-$889,000/QALY; tailored FIT/colonoscopy yielded more QALYs/person than annual FIT at $10,600-$60,000/QALY gained. Relatively modest colorectal cancer risk misclassification rates or risk-prediction tool costs resulted in uniform screening as the preferred approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Current risk-prediction tools may not yet be accurate enough to optimize colorectal cancer screening.

IMPACT

Uniform screening is likely to be preferred over tailored screening if a risk-prediction tool is associated with even modest misclassification rates or costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening: Health and Costs in Life Years Gained

INTRODUCTION

Studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening usually account for quality of life losses and healthcare costs owing to cancer but do not account for future costs and quality of life losses related to competing risks. This study aims to demonstrate the impact of medical costs and quality of life losses of other diseases in the life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of U.S. cancer screening.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness studies of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the U.S. were identified using a systematic literature review. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the eligible articles were updated by adding lifetime expenditures and health losses per quality-adjusted life year gained because of competing risks. This was accomplished using data on medical spending and quality of life by age and disease from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2011-2015) combined with cause-deleted life tables. The study was conducted in 2018.

RESULTS

The impact of quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures of competing risks in life years gained incurred owing to screening were the highest for breast cancer and the lowest for cervical cancer. The updates suggest that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are underestimated by $10,300-$13,700 per quality-adjusted life year gained if quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures of competing risks are omitted in economic evaluations. Furthermore, cancer screening programs that were considered cost saving, were found not to be so following the inclusion of medical expenditures of competing risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical difficulties in quantifying quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures owing to competing risks in life years gained can be overcome. Their inclusion can have a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies

PURPOSE

Despite the success of provincial screening programs, colorectal cancer (CRC) is still the third most common cancer in Canada and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Fecal-based tests, such as fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), form the foundation of the provincial CRC screening programs in Canada. However, those tests have low sensitivity for CRC precursors, adenomatous polyps and have low adherence. This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new urine metabolomic-based test (UMT) that detects adenomatous polyps and CRC.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed using data from the literature and provincial healthcare databases for Canadian at average risk for CRC; calibration was performed against statistics data. Screening strategies included the following: FOBT every year, FIT every year, colonoscopy every 10 years, and UMT every year. The costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each strategy were estimated and compared.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, a UMT strategy reduced CRC mortality by 49.9% and gained 0.15 life years per person at $42,325/life year gained in the base case analysis. FOBT reduced CRC mortality by 14.9% and gained 0.04 life years per person at $25,011/life year gained. FIT reduced CRC mortality by 35.8% and gained 0.11 life years per person at $25,500/life year while colonoscopy reduced CRC mortality by 24.7% and gained 0.08 life years per person at $50,875/life year.

CONCLUSIONS

A UMT strategy might be a cost-effective strategy when used in programmatic CRC screening programs.

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.

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.

Genome-wide screening of DNA methylation associated with lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Lymph node metastasis (LNM) of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is well-known to be an early event associated with poor prognosis in patients with ESCC. Recently, tumor-specific aberrant DNA methylation of CpG islands around the promoter regions of tumor-related genes has been investigated as a possible biomarker for use in early diagnosis and prediction of prognosis. However, there are few DNA methylation markers able to predict the presence of LNM in ESCC. To identify DNA methylation markers associated with LNM of ESCC, we performed a genome-wide screening of DNA methylation status in a discovery cohort of 67 primary ESCC tissues and their paired normal esophageal tissues using the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. In this screening, we focused on differentially methylated regions (DMRs) that were associated with LNM of ESCC, as prime candidates for DNA methylation markers. We extracted three genes, HOXB2, SLC15A3, and SEPT9, as candidates predicting LNM of ESCC, using pyrosequencing and several statistical analyses in the discovery cohort. We confirmed that HOXB2 and SEPT9 were highly methylated in LNM-positive tumors in 59 ESCC validation samples. These results suggested that HOXB2 and SEPT9 may be useful epigenetic biomarkers for the prediction of the presence of LNM in ESCC.

Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals.

METHODS

We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG.

RESULTS

Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test.

CONCLUSIONS

By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.

Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.

Advance in plasma SEPT9 gene methylation assay for colorectal cancer early detection

This review article summarizes the research advances of the plasma-based SEPT9 gene methylation assay for the clinical detection of colorectal cancer and its limitations. Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy with a poor prognosis and a high mortality, for which early detection and diagnosis are particularly crucial for the high-risk groups. Increasing evidence supported that SEPT9 gene methylation is associated with the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer and that detecting the level of methylation of SEPT9 in the peripheral blood can be used for screening of colorectal cancer in susceptible populations. In recent years, the data obtained in clinical studies demonstrated that the SEPT9 gene methylation assay has a good diagnostic performance with regard to both sensitivity and specificity with the advantage of better acceptability, convenience and compliance with serological testing compared with fecal occult blood tests and carcinoembryonic antigen for colorectal cancer (CRC). Furthermore, the combination of multiple methods or markers has become a growing trend for CRC detection and screening. Nevertheless, the clinical availability of the methylated SEPT9 assay is still limited because of the large degree of sample heterogeneity caused by demographic characteristics, pathological features, comorbidities and/or technique selection. Another factor is the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies that hinders its large-scale application. In addition, improvements in its accuracy in detecting adenomas and premalignant polyps are required.

Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations

AIM

To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening.

CONCLUSION

Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.

Identification and validation of colorectal neoplasia-specific methylation biomarkers based on CTCF-binding sites

To date, the sensitivity of currently available biomarkers based on the methylation of gene promoters is suboptimal for detecting adenomas and early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop biomarkers with methylated DNA binding sites of the multifunctional transcriptional factor CTCF for early detection of CRC. Using combined analyses of genome-wide occupation and the methylation profile of CTCF-binding sites, we identified candidate CTCF-binding sites. Then, we applied methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) and mass spectrometry analysis to screen and validate these candidate sites in diverse sample sets. We identified a set of colorectal neoplasia-specific biomarkers with robust performance. The top five biomarkers were selected and recommended for early detection of colorectal neoplasia. All of the five novel biomarkers exhibited a more robust discriminatory performance than that by BMP3 and NDRG4, two currently acknowledged robust methylation biomarkers. When the five new biomarkers were considered as a marker panel and tumor-positive was defined as having two or more (of the five) positive biomarkers, the marker panel could achieve a sensitivity of 91.67% for adenomas, 97.44% for Stage I CRC, 94.06% for Stage II CRC, 93.62% for Stage III CRC, and 93.54% for total colorectal tumors with a specificity of 94.05%. To our knowledge, this is the first study for colorectal neoplasia-specific methylation biomarkers based on CTCF-binding sites. Using a similar strategy, CTCF-binding sites could be potentially developed into biomarkers for other tumors. In summary, this study opens a new area in developing biomarkers for tumor prevention and treatment.

The evidence base for circulating tumour DNA blood-based biomarkers for the early detection of cancer: a systematic mapping review

BACKGROUND

The presence of circulating cell-free DNA from tumours in blood (ctDNA) is of major importance to those interested in early cancer detection, as well as to those wishing to monitor tumour progression or diagnose the presence of activating mutations to guide treatment. In 2014, the UK Early Cancer Detection Consortium undertook a systematic mapping review of the literature to identify blood-based biomarkers with potential for the development of a non-invasive blood test for cancer screening, and which identified this as a major area of interest. This review builds on the mapping review to expand the ctDNA dataset to examine the best options for the detection of multiple cancer types.

METHODS

The original mapping review was based on comprehensive searches of the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and Biosis to obtain relevant literature on blood-based biomarkers for cancer detection in humans (PROSPERO no. CRD42014010827). The abstracts for each paper were reviewed to determine whether validation data were reported, and then examined in full. Publications concentrating on monitoring of disease burden or mutations were excluded.

RESULTS

The search identified 94 ctDNA studies meeting the criteria for review. All but 5 studies examined one cancer type, with breast, colorectal and lung cancers representing 60% of studies. The size and design of the studies varied widely. Controls were included in 77% of publications. The largest study included 640 patients, but the median study size was 65 cases and 35 controls, and the bulk of studies (71%) included less than 100 patients. Studies either estimated cfDNA levels non-specifically or tested for cancer-specific mutations or methylation changes (the majority using PCR-based methods).

CONCLUSION

We have systematically reviewed ctDNA blood biomarkers for the early detection of cancer. Pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical considerations were identified which need to be addressed before such biomarkers enter clinical practice. The value of small studies with no comparison between methods, or even the inclusion of controls is highly questionable, and larger validation studies will be required before such methods can be considered for early cancer detection.

Fecal immunochemical tests in combination with blood tests for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma detection-systematic review

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common but largely preventable cancer. Although fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect the majority of CRCs, they miss some of the cancers and most advanced adenomas (AAs). The potential of blood tests in complementing FITs for the detection of CRC or AA has not yet been systematically investigated.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of performance of FIT combined with an additional blood test for CRC and AA detection versus FIT alone. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until June 9, 2017.

Results

Some markers substantially increased sensitivity for CRC when combined with FIT, albeit typically at a major loss of specificity. For AA, no relevant increase in sensitivity could be achieved.

Conclusion

Combining FIT and blood tests might be a promising approach to enhance sensitivity of CRC screening, but comprehensive evaluation of promising marker combinations in screening populations is needed.

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.

Value of CNRIP1 promoter methylation in colorectal cancer screening and prognosis assessment and its influence on the activity of cancer cells

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of CNRIP1 promoter methylation on the proliferative, invasive and migration potential of colorectal cancer cells, including its potential use for the early detection and prognostic assessment of colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) was used to detect the methylation status of the CNRIP1 promoter region in peripheral blood samples drawn from patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma, benign colorectal adenoma, and matched healthy controls. Putative CpG methylation sites were then pyrosequenced. We subsequently suppressed CNRIP1 methylation within colon cancer cells via treatment with 5-azacytidine and overexpressed colon cancer cells by transfection with a CNRIP1-overexpression pcDNA3.0 plasmid. Thereafter, the CNRIP1 methylation status and mRNA and protein expressions levels were determined. Finally, the proliferative, invasive and migration abilities of cell lines were determined with the CCK-8 and Transwell cell assays.

RESULTS

There were differences in the methylation status at loci 2216, 2226, 2231, 2245, and 2254 within the promoter region of CNRIP1 between patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma, colorectal adenoma, and healthy volunteers. The methylation status of CpG sequence 2245 significantly correlated with tumor diameter, invasion depth, TNM stage, grade, and lymph node metastasis (p < 0.05). The proliferative, invasive and migration abilities of colon cancer cells treated with 5-azaC or transfected with a CNRIP1-overexpression plasmid were significantly impaired relative to negative controls (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The methylation status at locus 2245 within the CNRIP1 promoter region has potential value for the early detection and prognostic evaluation of colorectal cancers. Demethylation of the CNRIP1 promoter or overexpression of CNRIP1 can reduce the proliferative and migration abilities of colon cancer cells.

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including “westernized” diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon^®) for CRC screening. This blood based test may serve to increase the participation and adherence rates. Hence, leading to increase in colon cancer detection and prevention. This article will discuss various CRC screening tests with a particular focus on the data regarding the new approved blood test. Finally, we will propose an algorithm for a simple cost-effective CRC screening program.

Epi proColon® 2.0 CE: A Blood-Based Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer

Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE is a blood-based test designed to aid in the early detection of colorectal cancer. The test comprises a qualitative assay for the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection of methylated Septin9 DNA, the presence of which is associated with colorectal cancer: however, positive results should be verified by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE discriminated between patients with colorectal cancer and healthy controls with high clinical sensitivity and specificity in pivotal case-control studies. The sensitivity of the test did not appear to be affected by the tumour location or by patient age or gender. In addition, limited data suggest that Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE discriminated between patients with colorectal cancer and healthy controls with higher sensitivity and generally similar specificity to that of the faecal immunochemical test, and with higher sensitivity and specificity to that of the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (statistical data not available). In an observational study, most patients who refused colonoscopy for screening accepted a non-invasive test option as an alternative, and preferred Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE over a stool-based test. Large prospective trials of Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE in a screening setting will be required to further elucidate the cost-effectiveness of the test. Nevertheless, currently available data suggests that Epi proColon^® 2.0 CE has the potential to be a sensitive and convenient screening option for patients refusing screening by colonoscopy.

The clinical role of circulating free tumor DNA in gastrointestinal malignancy

Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is DNA released from necrotic or apoptotic cells into the bloodstream. While both healthy cells and cancer cells release cfDNA, tumors are associated with higher levels of tumor-derived circulating cell-free DNA (ctDNA) detectable in blood. Absolute levels of ctDNA and its genetic mutations and epigenetic changes show promise as potentially useful biomarkers of tumor biology, progression, and response to therapy. Moreover, studies have demonstrated the discriminative accuracy of ctDNA levels for diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer compared with benign inflammatory diseases. Therefore, ctDNA detected in blood offers a minimally invasive and easily repeated "liquid biopsy" of cancer, facilitating real-time dynamic analysis of tumor behavior that could revolutionize both clinical and research practices in oncology. In this review, we provide a critical summary of the evidence for the utility of ctDNA as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in gastrointestinal malignancies.

Methylation-sensitive enrichment of minor DNA alleles using a double-strand DNA-specific nuclease

Aberrant methylation changes, often present in a minor allelic fraction in clinical samples such as plasma-circulating DNA (cfDNA), are potentially powerful prognostic and predictive biomarkers in human disease including cancer. We report on a novel, highly-multiplexed approach to facilitate analysis of clinically useful methylation changes in minor DNA populations. Methylation Specific Nuclease-assisted Minor-allele Enrichment (MS-NaME) employs a double-strand-specific DNA nuclease (DSN) to remove excess DNA with normal methylation patterns. The technique utilizes oligonucleotide-probes that direct DSN activity to multiple targets in bisulfite-treated DNA, simultaneously. Oligonucleotide probes targeting unmethylated sequences generate local double stranded regions resulting to digestion of unmethylated targets, and leaving methylated targets intact; and vice versa. Subsequent amplification of the targeted regions results in enrichment of the targeted methylated or unmethylated minority-epigenetic-alleles. We validate MS-NaME by demonstrating enrichment of RARb2, ATM, MGMT and GSTP1 promoters in multiplexed MS-NaME reactions (177-plex) using dilutions of methylated/unmethylated DNA and in DNA from clinical lung cancer samples and matched normal tissue. MS-NaME is a highly scalable single-step approach performed at the genomic DNA level in solution that combines with most downstream detection technologies including Sanger sequencing, methylation-sensitive-high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) and methylation-specific-Taqman-based-digital-PCR (digital Methylight) to boost detection of low-level aberrant methylation-changes.

Evaluation of antibody level against Fusobacterium nucleatum in the serological diagnosis of colorectal cancer

Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum, Fn) is associated with the colorectal cancer (CRC). Fn-infection could induce significant levels of serum Fn-specific antibodies in human and mice. The objective of this study was to identify Fn-infection that elicit a humoral response in patients with CRC and evaluate the diagnostic performance of serum anti-Fn antibodies. In this work, we showed the mean absorbance value of anti-Fn-IgA and -IgG in the CRC group were significantly higher than those in the benign colon disease group and healthy control group (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA for the detection of anti-Fn-IgA were 36.43% and 92.71% based on the optimal cut-off. The combination of anti-Fn-IgA and carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) was better for diagnosing CRC (Sen: 53.10%, Spe: 96.41%; AUC = 0.848). Furthermore, combining anti-Fn-IgA with CEA and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) (Sen: 40.00%, Spe: 94.22%; AUC = 0.743) had the better ability to classify CRC patients with stages I-II. These results suggested that Fn-infection elicited high level of serum anti-Fn antibodies in CRC patients, and serum anti-Fn-IgA level may be a potential diagnosing biomarker for CRC. Serum anti-Fn-IgA in combination with CEA and CA19-9 increases the sensitivity of detecting early CRC.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We developed a model to determine whether a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test that detects colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps with higher sensitivity and lower specificity, but at a higher cost, than the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used in screening.

METHODS

We used a Markov model of average-risk CRC screening to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening with the MT-sDNA test vs FIT or colonoscopy. We accounted for the complex longitudinal participation patterns observed in organized programs vs opportunistic screening, as well as organized programs' patient support costs and differential payment rates by commercial insurers vs Medicare.

RESULTS

With optimal adherence, yearly FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years were dominant (more effective and less costly) than MT-sDNA every 3 years. Compared with successful organized FIT programs (50% consistent and 27% intermittent participation; patient support costs, $153/cycle), the patient support program for the MT-sDNA test would need 68% of subjects to participate consistently and 32% to participate intermittently every 3 years, or the MT-sDNA test would need to cost 60% less than in the base case ($260 commercial payment and $197 Medicare payment), for the MT-sDNA test to be preferred over FIT at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with opportunistic yearly FIT screening (15% consistent and 30% intermittent participation), performing the MT-sDNA test every 3 years would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the MT-sDNA test achieved a participation rate more than 1.7-fold that of FIT. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Assuming equal participation across strategies and a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, FIT was preferred in 99.3% of iterations in Monte Carlo simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model, we found FIT and colonoscopy to be more effective and less costly than the MT-sDNA test when participation rates were equal for all strategies. For the MT-sDNA test to be cost effective, the patient support program included in its cost would need to achieve substantially higher participation rates than those of FIT, whether in organized programs or under the opportunistic screening setting that is more common in the United States than in the rest of the world.

Hypermethylated DNA as a biomarker for colorectal cancer: a systematic review

AIM

Improved methods for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) are essential for increasing survival. Hypermethylated DNA in blood or stool has been proposed as a biomarker for CRC. Biochemical methods have improved in recent years, and several hypermethylated genes that are sensitive and specific for CRC have been proposed. Articles describing the use of hypermethylated promoter regions in blood or stool as biomarkers for CRC were systematically reviewed.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases. Studies were included if they analysed hypermethylated genes from stool or blood samples in correlation with CRC. Studies in languages other than English and those based on animal models or cell lines were excluded.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 74 articles, including 43 addressing blood samples and 31 addressing stool samples. In blood samples, hypermethylated ALX4, FBN2, HLTF, P16, TMEFF1 and VIM were associated with poor prognosis, hypermethylated APC, NEUROG1, RASSF1A, RASSF2A, SDC2, SEPT9, TAC1 and THBD were detected in early stage CRC and hypermethylated P16 and TFPI2 were associated with CRC recurrence. In stool samples, hypermethylated BMP3, PHACTR3, SFRP2, SPG20, TFPI2 and TMEFF2 were associated with early stage CRC.

CONCLUSION

Hypermethylation of the promoters of specific genes measured in blood or stool samples could be used as a CRC biomarker and provide prognostic information. The majority of studies, however, include only a few patients with poorly defined control groups. Further studies are therefore needed before hypermethylated DNA can be widely applied as a clinical biomarker for CRC detection and prognosis.

Role of Raman spectroscopy and surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom and is the second largest cause of cancer related death in the United Kingdom after lung cancer. Currently in the United Kingdom there is not a diagnostic test that has sufficient differentiation between patients with cancer and those without cancer so the current referral system relies on symptomatic presentation in a primary care setting. Raman spectroscopy and surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) are forms of vibrational spectroscopy that offer a non-destructive method to gain molecular information about biological samples. The techniques offer a wide range of applications from in vivo or in vitro diagnostics using endoscopic probes, to the use of micro-spectrometers for analysis of biofluids. The techniques have the potential to detect molecular changes prior to any morphological changes occurring in the tissue and therefore could offer many possibilities to aid the detection of CRC. The purpose of this review is to look at the current state of diagnostic technology in the United Kingdom. The development of Raman spectroscopy and SERS in clinical applications relation for CRC will then be discussed. Finally, future areas of research of Raman/SERS as a clinical tool for the diagnosis of CRC are also discussed.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions with Their Effects on Health Disparity Being Considered

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening interventions with their effects on health disparity being considered.

Materials and Methods

Markov cohort simulation was conducted with the cycle/duration of 1/40 year(s). Data came from the results of randomized trials and others. Participants were hypothetical cohorts aged 50 years as of year 2013 in 16 Korean provinces. The interventions until the age of 80 were annual organized fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (standard screening), annual FOBT with basic reminders for provinces with higher mortalities than the national average (targeted reminder) and annual FOBT with basic/enhanced reminders for all provinces (universal reminder 1 and 2). The comparison was non-screening, the outcome was quality-adjusted life years, and only medical costs for screening and treatment were considered from a societal perspective. The Atkinson incremental cost effectiveness ratio (Atkinson ICER), the incremental cost effectiveness ratio adjusted by the Atkinson Inequality Index, was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the four interventions with their impacts on regional health disparity being considered.

Results

Health disparity was smallest (or greatest) in non-screening (or the standard screening). The targeted reminder had smaller health disparity, and smaller Atkinson ICER with respect to standard screening, than did the universal reminder 1 and 2.

Conclusion

The targeted reminder might be more cost effective than the universal reminders with their effects on health disparity being considered. This study helps to develop promotional effort for colorectal cancer screening with both the greatest cost effectiveness and the smallest health disparity

Performance of the colorectal cancer screening marker Sept9 is influenced by age, diabetes and arthritis: a nested case-control study

Background

Annually, colorectal cancer (CRC) is diagnosed in >1.4 million subjects worldwide and incidence is increasing. Much effort has therefore been focused on screening, which has proven to reduce cancer-related mortality. The Sept9 DNA-methylation assay is among the most well studied blood-based screening markers. However, earlier reported performances may be misleading: the Sept9 test was recently examined in two screening based cohorts and yielded performances lower than expected. We hypothesize that comorbidities and/or demographic characteristics affect the results of the Sept9 test.

Methods

Using a retrospective nested case–control study design, we studied plasma from 150 cancer and 150 controls selected from a well-characterized cohort of 4698 subjects referred for diagnostic colonoscopy due to CRC-related symptoms. The cases and controls were matched on age and gender, and moreover cases were stratified on tumor-site and tumor-stage. The selected cohort included a wide range of comorbidities. Plasma Sept9 levels were assessed using a commercially available PCR based assay (Epi-proColon).

Results

Clinical sensitivity for CRC stages I-IV was 37 %, 91 %, 77 %, and 89 %, and the overall sensitivity 73 % (95 % CI, 64–80 %) and specificity 82 % (95 % CI, 75–88 %), respectively. Age >65 was associated with both increased false positive and false negative results (p < 0.05). Arthritis was associated with a higher false negative rate (p = 0.005) whereas Arteriosclerosis was associated with a higher false positive rate (p = 0.007). Diabetes was associated with Sept9 positivity with an OR of 5.2 (95 % CI 1.4–19.1). When the performance of Sept9 was adjusted for these parameters in a final multivariate regression model, the OR for a positive Sept9 test to be associated with CRC increased from 8.25 (95 % CI 4.83–14.09) to 29.46 (95 % CI 12.58–69.02).

Conclusions

The results indicate that the performance of the Sept9 assay is negatively affected by several factors commonly associated with CRC screening populations: early-stage disease, age > 65 years, diabetes, arthritis, and arteriosclerosis. This should be taken into account if the Sept9 assay is used as a single marker for CRC screening, but may also have a wider impact, as it is likely that such factors may affect other blood based DNA markers as well.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1832-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and second most common in women. It is the fourth most common cause of cancer mortality. In the United States, CRC is the third most common cause of cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality. Incidence and mortality rates have steadily fallen, primarily due to widespread screening.

METHODS

We conducted keyword searches on PubMed in four categories of CRC screening: stool, endoscopic, radiologic, and serum, as well as news searches in Medscape and Google News.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening and the most common method in the United States. Technological improvements continue to be made, including the promising "third-eye retroscope." Fecal occult blood remains widely used, particularly outside the United States. The first at-home screen, a fecal DNA screen, has also recently been approved. Radiological methods are effective but seldom used due to cost and other factors. Serum tests are largely experimental, although at least one is moving closer to market.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy is likely to remain the most popular screening modality for the immediate future, although its shortcomings will continue to spur innovation in a variety of modalities.