The Annual Cost of Cancer Screening in the United States

How Good Is Good Enough? What Should Be the Target for CRC Screening?

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening of average-risk individuals has been shown to reduce CRC mortality and incidence. Incidence is reduced by detection and removal of cancer precursor lesions (CPLs), resulting in cancer prevention. Mortality reduction is achieved with detection of curable CRC, as well as prevention by removing CPLs before cancer develops. Targets of screening include both curable CRC and CPLs. Non-invasive stool tests are a multi-step screening program which can detect curable cancers and less likely to detect CPLs than invasive screening. The non-invasive programs depend on completion of colonoscopy if the test is positive. Invasive screening with colonoscopy is a one-step test program, with excellent detection of both curable CRCs and CPLs, if performed with high-quality. Current evidence suggests that either program could be effective, despite different targets. Patient adherence and program quality are perhaps the important determinants of program effectiveness.

Projected Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Molecular Blood-Based or Stool-Based Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Cell-free DNA blood tests (cf-bDNA) and next-generation stool tests could change colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the clinical and economic impacts of novel CRC screening tests.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using MOSAIC (Model of Screening and Surveillance for Colorectal Cancer).

DATA SOURCES

Published data.

TARGET POPULATION

Average-risk persons.

TIME HORIZON

Ages 45 to 100 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Health sector.

INTERVENTION

Novel versus established CRC screening tests.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence and mortality of CRC, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

For colonoscopy every 10 years, annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and triennial next-generation multitarget stool DNA, FIT-RNA, cf-bDNA (Guardant Shield), or cf-bDNA (Freenome), the relative rates (RRs) and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) versus no screening for CRC incidence were 0.21 (0.19 to 0.22), 0.29 (0.27 to 0.31), 0.33 (0.32 to 0.36), 0.32 (0.30 to 0.34), 0.58 (0.55 to 0.61) and 0.58 (0.55 to 0.60), respectively; the RRs for CRC death were 0.19 (0.17 to 0.20), 0.25 (0.23 to 0.27), 0.28 (0.27 to 0.30), 0.28 (0.26 to 0.30), 0.44 (0.42 to 0.47), and 0.46 (0.44 to 0.49), respectively. The cf-bDNA test (Shield; list price $1495) cost $89 600 ($74 800 to $102 300) per QALY gained versus no screening; alternatives were less costly and more effective.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Incremental costs exceeded incremental benefits when novel test intervals were shortened to 2 or 1 years. The cf-bDNA test matched FIT's impact on CRC mortality at 1.35 (1.30 to 1.40)-fold FIT's uptake rate, assuming equal colonoscopy follow-up. If persons who accept colonoscopy or stool tests shifted to cf-bDNA, CRC deaths increased. This adverse effect was overcome if every 3 such substitutions were counterbalanced by cf-bDNA uptake by 2 or more persons refusing alternatives, assuming equal colonoscopy follow-up.

LIMITATION

Longitudinal test-specific participation patterns are unknown.

CONCLUSION

First-generation cf-bDNA tests may deliver net benefit or harm, depending on the balance between achieving screening in persons who decline alternatives versus substituting cf-bDNA for more effective alternatives.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Gorrindo Family Fund.

The Unappreciated Value of a Cheap, 'Good Enough' Method of Detecting Thyroid Cancer

The advent of advanced molecular diagnostic techniques has revealed plenty of information about signaling pathways and gene regulation in cancer, as well as new inputs for the classification of cancer subtypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of response to therapy. However, in most cases we do not have single biomarkers yet and, therefore, the final diagnosis is often rendered by the combination of multiple results by means of complex algorithms, eventually leading to an increase in their costs. The problem of the costs of such tests is particularly relevant in the case of thyroid cancer (TC), because of the observed increase in the number of patients affected by thyroid nodules (TN)s, in what is considered a global pandemic. High-income countries can afford the cost of the advanced molecular tests for such a multitude of TNs, since they are covered by private insurances. People living in upper-middle, lower-middle, and especially in low-income countries, where the costs for these advanced molecular tests are supported by general taxation and out-of-pocket payments, are exposed as a personal financial burden. Immunohistochemistry in cancer management represents an extremely cost-effective method in different clinical scenarios. In the preoperative recognition of TC, the use of such method, based on Galectin-3 and others protein markers, such as HMBE1, proved to be effective in diagnosing TC in TNs indeterminate at conventional cytology (Bethesda classification III or IV), with an extremely low cost. Moreover, Galectin-3 fulfills one of the major criteria of an ideal marker, being involved in the thyroid cell transformation. Despite this evidence, Galectin-3 ThyroTest is not considered and not even mentioned in many reviews, focused on the appropriate identification of TC, as well as in studies where the cost-effectiveness of the different approaches is comparatively evaluated. The aim of this review is to emphasize the value of the Galectin-3 based immunohistochemistry as a cheap and "good enough" method in the preoperative diagnosis of TC especially in, but not limited to, low-middle income countries.

The Unholy Grail of cancer screening: or is it just about the Benjamins?

The biotechnology company Grail developed a non-invasive blood test (Galleri test) which is claimed to detect 50 types of cancer at early and potentially curable stages. The initially promising results from prospective studies, and the anticipated financial success of Grail led the sequencing giant Illumina to purchase Grail for $8 billion (2021). Following this event, Grail collaborated with the UK National Health System to further clarify the test's capability, in a 3-year prospective trial, along with the standard of care. The UK-NHS announced that the trial will provide a clearer understanding of the efficacy of the Galleri test within the NHS framework. If the test does not perform as expected, valuable insights will still be gained to guide future research aimed at enhancing cancer screening. We previously expressed concerns about the sensitivity and specificity of the Galleri test. In this opinion paper, we revisit the hyped technology, and we provide new suggestions on the use of this test.