The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, being the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Despite the progress in screening, early diagnosis, and treatment, approximately 20%-25% of CRC patients still present with metastatic disease at the time of their initial diagnosis. Furthermore, the burden of disease is still expected to increase, especially in individuals younger than 50 years old, among whom early-onset CRC incidence has been increasing. Screening and early detection are pivotal to improve CRC-related outcomes. It is well established that CRC screening not only reduces incidence, but also decreases deaths from CRC. Diverse screening strategies have proven effective in decreasing both CRC incidence and mortality, though variations in efficacy have been reported across the literature. However, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal screening method, age intervals and periodicity. Moreover, adherence to CRC screening remains globally low. In recent years, emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence, and non-invasive biomarkers, have been developed to overcome these barriers. However, controversy exists over the actual impact of some of the new discoveries on CRC-related outcomes and how to effectively integrate them into daily practice. In this review, we aim to cover the current evidence surrounding CRC screening. We will further critically assess novel approaches under investigation, in an effort to differentiate promising innovations from mere novelties.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou, southern China: a Markov simulation analysis based on natural community screening results

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model.

METHODS

Treeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

All strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

All screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.

Using Metamodeling to Identify the Optimal Strategy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

Metamodeling can address computational challenges within decision-analytic modeling studies evaluating many strategies. This article illustrates the value of metamodeling for evaluating colorectal cancer screening strategies while accounting for colonoscopy capacity constraints.

METHODS

In a traditional approach, the best screening strategy was identified from a limited subset of strategies evaluated with the validated Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model. In a metamodeling approach, metamodels were fitted to this limited subset to evaluate all potentially plausible strategies and determine the best overall screening strategy. Approaches were compared based on the best screening strategy in life-years gained compared with no screening. Metamodel runtime and accuracy was assessed.

RESULTS

The metamodeling approach evaluated >40 000 strategies in <1 minute with high accuracy after 1 adaptive sampling step (mean absolute error: 0.0002 life-years) using 300 samples in total (generation time: 8 days). Findings indicated that health outcomes could be improved without requiring additional colonoscopy capacity. Obtaining similar insights using the traditional approach could require at least 1000 samples (generation time: 28 days). Suggested benefits from screening at ages <40 years require adequate validation of the underlying Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model before making policy recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Metamodeling allows rapid assessment of a vast set of strategies, which may lead to identification of more favorable strategies compared to a traditional approach. Nevertheless, metamodel validation and identifying extrapolation beyond the support of the original decision-analytic model are critical to the interpretation of results. The screening strategies identified with metamodeling support ongoing discussions on decreasing the starting age of colorectal cancer screening.

Validation of Microsimulation Models against Alternative Model Predictions and Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Outcomes of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. This study aimed to assess the validity of 2 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer (CRC), Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA. Methods. The model-estimated CRC risk in population subgroups with different health statuses, "dwell time" (time from incident precancerous polyp to symptomatically detected CRC), and reduction in symptomatically detected CRC incidence after a one-time complete removal of polyps and/or undetected CRC were compared with published findings from 3 well-established models (MISCAN, CRC-SPIN, and SimCRC). Furthermore, 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided screening using a guaiac fecal occult blood test (Funen trial, Burgundy trial, and Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [MCCCS]) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (NORCCAP, SCORE, and UKFSST) with long-term follow-up were simulated. Model-estimated long-term relative reductions of CRC incidence (RR_inc) and mortality (RR_mort) were compared with the RCTs' findings. Results. The Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA estimates showed more similarities to CRC-SPIN and SimCRC. For example, overall dwell times estimated by Policy1-Bowel (24.0 years) and ASCCA (25.3) were comparable to CRC-SPIN (25.8) and SimCRC (25.2) but higher than MISCAN (10.6). In addition, ∼86% of Policy1-Bowel's and ∼74% of ASCCA's estimated RR_inc and RR_mort were consistent with the RCTs' long-term follow-up findings. For example, at 17 to 18 years of follow-up, the MCCCS reported RR_mort of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.83) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62-0.97) for the annual and biennial screening arm, respectively, and the UKFSST reported RR_mort of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79) for CRC at all sites and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65) for distal CRC. The corresponding model estimates were 0.65, 0.74, 0.81, and 0.61, respectively, for Policy1-Bowel and 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, and 0.58, respectively, for ASCCA. Conclusion. Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA's estimates are largely consistent with the data included for comparisons, which indicates good model validity.

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.

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.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy

OBJECTIVE

Unit costs of screening CT colonography (CTC) can be useful for cost-effectiveness analyses and for health care decision-making. We evaluated the unit costs of CTC as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in the setting of a randomized trial in Italy.

METHODS

Data were collected within the randomized SAVE trial. Subjects were invited to screening CTC by mail and requested to have a pre-examination consultation. CTCs were performed with 64- and 128-slice CT scanners after reduced or full bowel preparation. Activity-based costing was used to determine unit costs per-process, per-participant to screening CTC, and per-subject with advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

Among 5242 subjects invited to undergo screening CTC, 1312 had pre-examination consultation and 1286 ultimately underwent CTC. Among 129 subjects with a positive CTC, 126 underwent assessment colonoscopy and 67 were ultimately diagnosed with advanced neoplasia (i.e., cancer or advanced adenoma). Cost per-participant of the entire screening CTC pathway was €196.80. Average cost per-participant for the screening invitation process was €17.04 and €9.45 for the pre-examination consultation process. Average cost per-participant of the CTC execution and reading process was €146.08 and of the diagnostic assessment colonoscopy process was €24.23. Average cost per-subject with advanced neoplasia was €3777.30.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of screening CTC was €196.80 per-participant. Our data suggest that the more relevant cost of screening CTC, amenable of intervention, is related to CTC execution and reading process.

New insights into colorectal cancer screening and early detection tests

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cancer in both men and women worldwide. Creating a diagnostic panel is necessary for early diagnosis which could lead to a better long-term survival in cancer patients. Colonoscopy every 10 years, starting at age 50, is the preferred CRC screening test. Many studies have been worked on potential diagnostic biomarkers of CRC. In this article, we described the recent evolutions in the development of CRC noninvasive screening assays. Recently, a multifunctional fecal DNA test has been available commercially in the USA. A few other US FDA-approved tests like Epi proColon® (Epigenomics AG, Berlin, Germany) are also available now. Although a new marker class for fecal occult blood test, a novel biomarker based on fecal bacteria in CRC patients and circulating tumor cells are under investigation, there is still a strong need to do more research for CRC screening strategies.

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

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

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

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

CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging examination for the colon, and is safe, well tolerated and accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma. While the role of CTC as a primary test for population screening of CRC is under investigation, the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) has been recommended for population screening of CRC in Europe. Subjects with positive FOBT are invited to undergo total colonoscopy, which has some critical issues, such as suboptimal compliance, contraindications and the possibility of an incomplete exploration of the colon. Based on available data, the integration of CTC in FOBT-based population screening programs for CRC may fall into three scenarios. First, CTC is recommended in FOBT-positive subjects when colonoscopy is refused, incomplete or contraindicated. For these indications CTC should replace double-contrast barium enema. Second, conversely, CTC is not currently recommended as a second-level examination prior to colonoscopy in all FOBT-positive subjects, as this strategy is most probably not cost-effective. Finally, CTC may be considered instead of colonoscopy for surveillance after adenoma removal, but specific studies are needed.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.