1
|
Yebyo HG, van Wifferen F, Pluymen LPM, Leeflang MMG, Dekker E, Coupé VMH, Puhan MA, Greuter MJE, Stegeman I. Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2024; 27:397-404. [PMID: 38141815 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 12/25/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons. METHODS The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle. RESULTS CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henock G Yebyo
- University of Zurich, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Ldwig Maximilian University (LMU), Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Public Health and Health Services Research, Munich, Germany
| | - Francine van Wifferen
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Linda P M Pluymen
- Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mariska M G Leeflang
- Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Milo A Puhan
- University of Zurich, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Marjolein J E Greuter
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Epidemiology and Data Science, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Inge Stegeman
- Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University Medical Centre Utrecht, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Utrecht, The Netherlands; University Medical Centre Utrecht, Brain Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wisse PHA, de Klaver W, van Wifferen F, van Maaren-Meijer FG, van Ingen HE, Meiqari L, Huitink I, Bierkens M, Lemmens M, Greuter MJE, van Leerdam ME, Spaander MCW, Dekker E, Coupé VMH, Carvalho B, de Wit M, Meijer GA. The multitarget faecal immunochemical test for improving stool-based colorectal cancer screening programmes: a Dutch population-based, paired-design, intervention study. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:326-337. [PMID: 38346438 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00651-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2023] [Revised: 12/08/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely employed for colorectal cancer screening. However, its sensitivity for advanced precursor lesions remains suboptimal. The multitarget FIT (mtFIT), measuring haemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2, has demonstrated enhanced sensitivity for advanced neoplasia, especially advanced adenomas, at equal specificity to FIT. This study aimed to prospectively validate and investigate the clinical utlitity of mtFIT versus FIT in a setting of population-based colorectal cancer screening. METHODS Individuals aged 55-75 years and who were eligible for the Dutch national FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme were invited to submit both a FIT and mtFIT sample collected from the same bowel movement. Positive FIT (47 μg/g haemoglobin cutoff) or mtFIT (based on decision-tree algorithm) led to a colonoscopy referral. The primary outcome was the relative detection rate of mtFIT versus FIT for all advanced neoplasia. Secondary outcomes were the relative detection rates of colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps individually and the long-term effect of mtFIT-based versus FIT-based programmatic screening on colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and cost, determined with microsimulation modelling. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05314309, and is complete. FINDINGS Between March 25 and Dec 7, 2022, 35 786 individuals were invited to participate in the study, of whom 15 283 (42·7%) consented, and 13 187 (86·3%) of 15 283 provided both mtFIT and FIT samples with valid results. Of the 13 187 participants, 6637 (50·3%) were male and 6550 (49·7%) were female. mtFIT showed a 9·11% (95% CI 8·62-9·61) positivity rate and 2·27% (95% CI 2·02-2·54) detection rate for advanced neoplasia, compared with a positivity rate of 4·08% (3·75-4·43) and a detection rate of 1·21% (1·03-1·41) for FIT. Detection rates of mtFIT versus FIT were 0·20% (95% CI 0·13-0·29) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·27) for colorectal cancer; 1·64% (1·43-1·87) versus 0·86% (0·72-1·04) for advanced adenoma, and 0·43% (0·33-0·56) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·26) for advanced serrated polyps. Modelling demonstrated that mtFIT-based screening could reduce colorectal cancer incidence by 21% and associated mortality by 18% compared with the current Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme, at feasible costs. Furthermore, at equal positivity rates, mtFIT outperformed FIT in terms of diagnostic yield. At an equally low positivity rate, mtFIT-based screening was predicted to further decrease colorectal cancer incidence by 5% and associated mortality by 4% compared with FIT-based screening. INTERPRETATION The higher detection rate of mtFIT for advanced adenoma compared with FIT holds the potential to translate into additional and clinically meaningful long-term colorectal cancer incidence and associated mortality reductions in programmatic colorectal cancer screening. FUNDING Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and Health~Holland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pieter H A Wisse
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Willemijn de Klaver
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Francine van Wifferen
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Huub E van Ingen
- Department of Clinical Chemistry, Star-shl, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Lana Meiqari
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Iris Huitink
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mariska Bierkens
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Margriet Lemmens
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marjolein J E Greuter
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Monique E van Leerdam
- Department of Gastro-intestinal Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Manon C W Spaander
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Beatriz Carvalho
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Meike de Wit
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Gerrit A Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McIntosh JG, Emery JD, Wood A, Chondros P, Goodwin BC, Trevena J, Wilson C, Chang S, Hocking J, Campbell T, Macrae F, Milley K, Lew JB, Nightingale C, Dixon I, Castelli M, Lee N, Innes L, Jolley T, Fletcher S, Buchanan L, Doncovio S, Broun K, Austin G, Jiang J, Jenkins MA. SMARTERscreen protocol: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of patient SMS messaging in general practice to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Trials 2023; 24:723. [PMID: 37957680 PMCID: PMC10642038 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07756-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 10/20/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Australia persistently has one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) sends a biennial Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-the 'NBCSP kit'-to everyone eligible for the programme between 50 and 74 years old; however, participation in the programme is low, especially in the 50- to 60-year-old age group. Our previous efficacy trial ('SMARTscreen') demonstrated an absolute increase in uptake of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02-30.9%) for people sent an SMS with motivational and instructional videos, from their general practice prior to receiving their NBCSP kit, compared to those receiving usual care. Building on the strengths of the SMARTscreen trial and addressing limitations, the 'SMARTERscreen' trial will test the effect on participation in the NBCSP of sending either an SMS only or an SMS with online video material to general practice patients due to receive their NBCSP compared to 'usual care'. METHODS SMARTERscreen is a three-arm stratified cluster randomised controlled trial involving 63 general practices in two states in Australia. Eligible patients are patients who are aged 49-60 years and due to receive their NBCSP kit within the next 2 weeks during the intervention period. General practices will be equally randomised to three trial arms (21:21:21, estimated average 260 patients/practice). The two interventions include (i) an SMS with an encouraging message from their general practice or (ii) the same SMS with weblinks to additional motivational and instructional videos. The control arm will receive 'usual care'. Using the intention-to-treat approach, primary analysis will estimate the three pair-wise between-arm differences in the proportion of eligible patients who participate in the NBCSP within 6 months of when their kit is sent, utilising screening data from the Australian National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR). Patient intervention adherence to the interventions will also be evaluated. Findings will be incorporated into the Policy1-Bowel microsimulation model to estimate the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION SMARTERscreen will provide high-level evidence determining whether an SMS or an SMS with web-based material sent to general practice patients prior to receiving their NBCSP kit increases participation in bowel cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000036617. Registered on 13 January 2023. Trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385119&isClinicalTrial=False.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer G McIntosh
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
| | - Jon D Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Anna Wood
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Patty Chondros
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Belinda C Goodwin
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia
| | - Judy Trevena
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Carlene Wilson
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Shanton Chang
- School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Jane Hocking
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | | | - Finlay Macrae
- Colorectal Medicine and Genetics, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kristi Milley
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jie-Bin Lew
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Claire Nightingale
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Ian Dixon
- , Consumer Representative, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Tamara Jolley
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia
| | | | - Lyn Buchanan
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | | | - Kate Broun
- Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Joyce Jiang
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Multicultural Centre for Women's Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mark A Jenkins
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vahdat V, Alagoz O, Chen JV, Saoud L, Borah BJ, Limburg PJ. Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks. Med Decis Making 2023; 43:719-736. [PMID: 37434445 PMCID: PMC10422851 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x231184175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Machine learning (ML)-based emulators improve the calibration of decision-analytical models, but their performance in complex microsimulation models is yet to be determined. METHODS We demonstrated the use of an ML-based emulator with the Colorectal Cancer (CRC)-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model, which includes 23 unknown natural history input parameters to replicate the CRC epidemiology in the United States. We first generated 15,000 input combinations and ran the CRC-AIM model to evaluate CRC incidence, adenoma size distribution, and the percentage of small adenoma detected by colonoscopy. We then used this data set to train several ML algorithms, including deep neural network (DNN), random forest, and several gradient boosting variants (i.e., XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost) and compared their performance. We evaluated 10 million potential input combinations using the selected emulator and examined input combinations that best estimated observed calibration targets. Furthermore, we cross-validated outcomes generated by the CRC-AIM model with those made by CISNET models. The calibrated CRC-AIM model was externally validated using the United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST). RESULTS The DNN with proper preprocessing outperformed other tested ML algorithms and successfully predicted all 8 outcomes for different input combinations. It took 473 s for the trained DNN to predict outcomes for 10 million inputs, which would have required 190 CPU-years without our DNN. The overall calibration process took 104 CPU-days, which included building the data set, training, selecting, and hyperparameter tuning of the ML algorithms. While 7 input combinations had acceptable fit to the targets, a combination that best fits all outcomes was selected as the best vector. Almost all of the predictions made by the best vector laid within those from the CISNET models, demonstrating CRC-AIM's cross-model validity. Similarly, CRC-AIM accurately predicted the hazard ratios of CRC incidence and mortality as reported by UKFSST, demonstrating its external validity. Examination of the impact of calibration targets suggested that the selection of the calibration target had a substantial impact on model outcomes in terms of life-year gains with screening. CONCLUSIONS Emulators such as a DNN that is meticulously selected and trained can substantially reduce the computational burden of calibrating complex microsimulation models. HIGHLIGHTS Calibrating a microsimulation model, a process to find unobservable parameters so that the model fits observed data, is computationally complex.We used a deep neural network model, a popular machine learning algorithm, to calibrate the Colorectal Cancer Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model.We demonstrated that our approach provides an efficient and accurate method to significantly speed up calibration in microsimulation models.The calibration process successfully provided cross-model validation of CRC-AIM against 3 established CISNET models and also externally validated against a randomized controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vahab Vahdat
- Health Economics and Outcome Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Departments of Industrial & Systems Engineering and Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jing Voon Chen
- Health Economics and Outcome Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Leila Saoud
- Health Economics and Outcome Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Bijan J. Borah
- Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Paul J. Limburg
- Health Economics and Outcome Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Behar Harpaz S, Weber MF, Wade S, Ngo PJ, Vaneckova P, Sarich PEA, Cressman S, Tammemagi MC, Fong K, Marshall H, McWilliams A, Zalcberg JR, Caruana M, Canfell K. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:91-101. [PMID: 36323879 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02026-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Revised: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions. METHODS We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon. RESULTS The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer. DISCUSSION Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Behar Harpaz
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Marianne F Weber
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephen Wade
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Preston J Ngo
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Pavla Vaneckova
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Peter E A Sarich
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sonya Cressman
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Martin C Tammemagi
- Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada
| | - Kwun Fong
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia.,University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre at The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia
| | - Henry Marshall
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia.,University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre at The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia
| | | | - John R Zalcberg
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Michael Caruana
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Karen Canfell
- The Daffodil Centre, the University of Sydney, A joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van Wifferen F, Greuter MJE, Lissenberg-Witte BI, Carvalho B, Meijer GA, Dekker E, Campari C, Garcia M, Rabeneck L, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Senore C, Coupé VMH, Segnan N, McCarthy S, Puricelli-Perin DM, Portillo I, Jahn B. Guidance for setting international standards on reporting longitudinal adherence to stool-based colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2022; 164:107187. [PMID: 35963311 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Revised: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Longitudinal adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is reported using different summarizing measures, which hampers international comparison. We provide evidence to guide recommendations on which longitudinal adherence measure to report. Using adherence data over four stool-based CRC screening rounds in three countries, we calculated six summarizing adherence measures; adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, rescreening, full programme adherence (yes/no), regularity (never/inconsistent/consistent screenees) and number of times participated. For each measure, we calculated the accuracy in capturing the observed adherence patterns. Using the ASCCA model, we predicted screening effectiveness when using summarizing measures as model input versus the observed adherence patterns. Adherence over all rounds in the Italian, Spanish and Dutch cohorts was 64.9%, 42.8% and 61.5%, respectively, and the proportion of consistent screenees was 50.9%, 26.3% and 45.7%. Number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as simulating the observed adherence patterns of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands (mortality reductions: 24.4%, 16.9% and 23.5%). Adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were least accurate. Screening effectiveness was overestimated when using adherence over all rounds (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.4% and 25.7%) and adherence per round (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.5% and 25.9%). To conclude, number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as using the observed adherence patterns. However they require longitudinal data. To facilitate international comparison of CRC screening programme performance, consensus on an accurate adherence measure to report should be reached.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine van Wifferen
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Marjolein J E Greuter
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Beatriz Carvalho
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gerrit A Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cinzia Campari
- Screening Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Montse Garcia
- Cancer Screening Unit, Prevention and Control Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Linda Rabeneck
- Prevention & Cancer Control, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carlo Senore
- SSD Epidemiology, screening unit - CPO, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Nereo Segnan
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, CPO, Piedmonte, Turin, Italy
| | - Sharon McCarthy
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Isabel Portillo
- Osakidetza Basque Health Service, Basque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme, 48011 Bilbao, Spain; Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cancer Biomarker Area, 48903 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - Beate Jahn
- Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer Zentrum 1, A-6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Akwiwu EU, Klausch T, Jodal HC, Carvalho B, Løberg M, Kalager M, Berkhof J, H. Coupé VM. A progressive three-state model to estimate time to cancer: a likelihood-based approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022; 22:179. [PMID: 35761181 PMCID: PMC9235269 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01645-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, information regarding the time-dependent risk of advanced adenomas (AA) to develop into CRC is crucial. However, since AA are removed after diagnosis, the time from AA to CRC cannot be observed in an ethically acceptable manner. We propose a statistical method to indirectly infer this time in a progressive three-state disease model using surveillance data. Methods Sixteen models were specified, with and without covariates. Parameters of the parametric time-to-event distributions from the adenoma-free state (AF) to AA and from AA to CRC were estimated simultaneously, by maximizing the likelihood function. Model performance was assessed via simulation. The methodology was applied to a random sample of 878 individuals from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. Results Estimates of the parameters of the time distributions are consistent and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have good coverage. For the Norwegian sample (AF: 78%, AA: 20%, CRC: 2%), a Weibull model for both transition times was selected as the final model based on information criteria. The mean time among those who have made the transition to CRC since AA onset within 50 years was estimated to be 4.80 years (95% CI: 0; 7.61). The 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC from AA was 13.8% (95% CI: 7.8%;23.8%) and 15.4% (95% CI: 8.2%;34.0%), respectively. Conclusions The time-dependent risk from AA to CRC is crucial to explain differences in the outcomes of microsimulation models used for the optimization of CRC prevention. Our method allows for improving models by the inclusion of data-driven time distributions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12874-022-01645-2).
Collapse
|
8
|
Lew JB, Feletto E, Worthington J, Roder D, Canuto K, Miller C, D’Onise K, Canfell K. The potential for tailored screening to reduce bowel cancer mortality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia: modelling study. J Cancer Policy 2022; 32:100325. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Revised: 01/28/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
9
|
McFerran E, O’Mahony JF, Naber S, Sharp L, Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kee F. Colorectal Cancer Screening within Colonoscopy Capacity Constraints: Can FIT-Based Programs Save More Lives by Trading off More Sensitive Test Cutoffs against Longer Screening Intervals? MDM Policy Pract 2022; 7:23814683221097064. [PMID: 35573867 PMCID: PMC9091364 DOI: 10.1177/23814683221097064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction. Colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention programs using
fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in screening rely on colonoscopy for
secondary and surveillance testing. Colonoscopy capacity is an important
constraint. Some European programs lack sufficient capacity to provide optimal
screening intensity regarding age ranges, intervals, and FIT cutoffs. It is
currently unclear how to optimize programs within colonoscopy capacity
constraints. Design. Microsimulation modeling, using the
MISCAN-Colon model, was used to determine if more effective CRC screening
programs can be identified within constrained colonoscopy capacity. A total of
525 strategies were modeled and compared, varying 3 key screening parameters:
screening intervals, age ranges, and FIT cutoffs, including previously
unevaluated 4- and 5-year screening intervals (using a lifetime horizon and 100%
adherence). Results were compared with the policy decisions taken in Ireland to
provide CRC screening within available colonoscopy capacity. Outcomes estimated
net costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and required colonoscopies. The
optimal strategies within finite colonoscopy capacity constraints were
identified. Results. Combining a reduced FIT cutoff of 10 µg Hb/g,
an extended screening interval of 4 y and an age range of 60–72 y requires 6%
fewer colonoscopies, reduces net costs by 23% while preventing 15% more CRC
deaths and saving 16% more QALYs relative to a strategy (FIT 40 µg Hb/g,
2-yearly, 60–70 year) approximating current policy. Conclusion.
Previously overlooked longer screening intervals may optimize cancer prevention
with finite colonoscopy capacity constraints. Changes could save lives, reduce
costs, and relieve colonoscopy capacity pressures. These findings are relevant
to CRC screening programs across Europe that employ FIT-based testing, which
face colonoscopy capacity constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethna McFerran
- Queen’s University Belfast, Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, UK
| | - James F. O’Mahony
- Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | | | - Ann G. Zauber
- Department of Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Frank Kee
- Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
van Wifferen F, de Jonge L, Worthington J, Greuter MJ, Lew JB, Nadeau C, van den Puttelaar R, Feletto E, Yong JH, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Canfell K, Coupé VM, Anderson L, Besó Delgado M, Binefa G, Cust A, Dekker E, Dell’Anna V, Essue B, Espinas J, Flander L, Garcia M, Hahn A, Idigoras I, Katanoda K, Laghi L, Lamrock F, McFerran E, Majek O, Molina-Barceló A, Ledger M, Musa O, Njor S, O’Connor K, Portillo I, Salas D, Senore C, Smith H, Symonds E, Tachecí I, Taksler G, Tolani M, Treby M, Zauber A, Zheng Y. Prioritisation of colonoscopy services in colorectal cancer screening programmes to minimise impact of COVID-19 pandemic on predicted cancer burden: A comparative modelling study. J Med Screen 2021; 29:72-83. [PMID: 35100894 PMCID: PMC9087314 DOI: 10.1177/09691413211056777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Objectives Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has
been disrupted in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Performing
catch-up of missed screens while maintaining regular screening services
requires additional colonoscopy capacity that may not be available. This
study aimed to compare strategies that clear the screening backlog using
limited colonoscopy resources. Methods A range of strategies were simulated using four country-specific CRC
natural-history models: Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer
(ASCCA) and MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis for CRC (MISCAN-Colon) (both
in the Netherlands), Policy1-Bowel (Australia) and OncoSim (Canada).
Strategies assumed a 3-month screening disruption with varying recovery
period lengths (6, 12, and 24 months) and varying FIT thresholds for
diagnostic colonoscopy. Increasing the FIT threshold reduces the number of
referrals to diagnostic colonoscopy. Outcomes for each strategy were
colonoscopy demand and excess CRC-related deaths due to the disruption. Results Performing catch-up using the regular FIT threshold in 6, 12 and 24 months
could prevent most excess CRC-related deaths, but required 50%, 25% and
12.5% additional colonoscopy demand, respectively. Without exceeding usual
colonoscopy demand, up to 60% of excess CRC-related deaths can be prevented
by increasing the FIT threshold for 12 or 24 months. Large increases in FIT
threshold could lead to additional deaths rather than preventing them. Conclusions Clearing the screening backlog in 24 months could avert most excess
CRC-related deaths due to a 3-month disruption but would require a small
increase in colonoscopy demand. Increasing the FIT threshold slightly over
24 months could ease the pressure on colonoscopy resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine van Wifferen
- Decision Modeling Center, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lucie de Jonge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joachim Worthington
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Marjolein J.E. Greuter
- Decision Modeling Center, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jie-Bin Lew
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Claude Nadeau
- Health Analysis Division, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Eleonora Feletto
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karen Canfell
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture With Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Veerle M.H. Coupé
- Decision Modeling Center, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Dominitz JA. A Tailored FIT for Improved Colorectal Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174:1315-1316. [PMID: 34280331 DOI: 10.7326/m21-2748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jason A Dominitz
- National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, Veterans Health Administration Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
de Klaver W, Wisse PHA, van Wifferen F, Bosch LJW, Jimenez CR, van der Hulst RWM, Fijneman RJA, Kuipers EJ, Greuter MJE, Carvalho B, Spaander MCW, Dekker E, Coupé VMH, de Wit M, Meijer GA. Clinical Validation of a Multitarget Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174:1224-1231. [PMID: 34280333 DOI: 10.7326/m20-8270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Willemijn de Klaver
- Netherlands Cancer Institute and Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (W.d.K.)
| | - Pieter H A Wisse
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (P.H.W.)
| | - Francine van Wifferen
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (F.V., C.R.J., M.J.G., V.M.H.C.)
| | - Linda J W Bosch
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (L.J.B., R.J.F., B.C., M.d.W., G.A.M.)
| | - Connie R Jimenez
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (F.V., C.R.J., M.J.G., V.M.H.C.)
| | | | - Remond J A Fijneman
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (L.J.B., R.J.F., B.C., M.d.W., G.A.M.)
| | - Ernst J Kuipers
- Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (E.J.K., M.C.S.)
| | - Marjolein J E Greuter
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (F.V., C.R.J., M.J.G., V.M.H.C.)
| | - Beatriz Carvalho
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (L.J.B., R.J.F., B.C., M.d.W., G.A.M.)
| | - Manon C W Spaander
- Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (E.J.K., M.C.S.)
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (E.D.)
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (F.V., C.R.J., M.J.G., V.M.H.C.)
| | - Meike de Wit
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (L.J.B., R.J.F., B.C., M.d.W., G.A.M.)
| | - Gerrit A Meijer
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (L.J.B., R.J.F., B.C., M.d.W., G.A.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
de Jonge L, Worthington J, van Wifferen F, Iragorri N, Peterse EFP, Lew JB, Greuter MJE, Smith HA, Feletto E, Yong JHE, Canfell K, Coupé VMH, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands: a comparative modelling study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6:304-314. [PMID: 33548185 PMCID: PMC9767453 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00003-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 12/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer screening programmes worldwide have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the impact of hypothetical disruptions to organised faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes on short-term and long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in three countries using microsimulation modelling. METHODS In this modelling study, we used four country-specific colorectal cancer microsimulation models-Policy1-Bowel (Australia), OncoSim (Canada), and ASCCA and MISCAN-Colon (the Netherlands)-to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands annually for the period 2020-24 and cumulatively for the period 2020-50. Modelled scenarios varied by duration of disruption (3, 6, and 12 months), decreases in screening participation after the period of disruption (0%, 25%, or 50% reduction), and catch-up screening strategies (within 6 months after the disruption period or all screening delayed by 6 months). FINDINGS Without catch-up screening, our analysis predicted that colorectal cancer deaths among individuals aged 50 years and older, a 3-month disruption would result in 414-902 additional new colorectal cancer diagnoses (relative increase 0·1-0·2%) and 324-440 additional deaths (relative increase 0·2-0·3%) in the Netherlands, 1672 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·3%) and 979 additional deaths (relative increase 0·5%) in Australia, and 1671 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·2%) and 799 additional deaths (relative increase 0·3%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 6-month disruption would result in 803-1803 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·2-0·4%) and 678-881 additional deaths (relative increase 0·4-0·6%) in the Netherlands, 3552 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·6%) and 1961 additional deaths (relative increase 1·0%) in Australia, and 2844 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·3%) and 1319 additional deaths (relative increase 0·4%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 12-month disruption would result in 1619-3615 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·4-0·9%) and 1360-1762 additional deaths (relative increase 0·8-1·2%) in the Netherlands, 7140 additional diagnoses (relative increase 1·2%) and 3968 additional deaths (relative increase 2·0%) in Australia, and 5212 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·6%) and 2366 additional deaths (relative increase 0·8%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. Providing immediate catch-up screening could minimise the impact of the disruption, restricting the relative increase in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050 to less than 0·1% in all countries. A post-disruption decrease in participation could increase colorectal cancer incidence by 0·2-0·9% and deaths by 0·6-1·6% between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. INTERPRETATION Although the projected effect of short-term disruption to colorectal cancer screening is modest, such disruption will have a marked impact on colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050 attributable to missed screening. Thus, it is crucial that, if disrupted, screening programmes ensure participation rates return to previously observed rates and provide catch-up screening wherever possible, since this could mitigate the impact on colorectal cancer deaths. FUNDING Cancer Council New South Wales, Health Canada, and Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucie de Jonge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands,Correspondence to: Ms Lucie de Jonge, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Joachim Worthington
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia,School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Francine van Wifferen
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Decision Modelling Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Nicolas Iragorri
- Canadian Partnership against Cancer, Toronto, ON, Canada,Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Elisabeth F P Peterse
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jie-Bin Lew
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia,School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Marjolein J E Greuter
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Decision Modelling Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Heather A Smith
- Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Eleonora Feletto
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia,School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jean H E Yong
- Canadian Partnership against Cancer, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Karen Canfell
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia,School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia,University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Decision Modelling Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|