Effects of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Population Health: a modeling assessment

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the Netherlands and other developed countries. Each year, more than 10,000 cases are newly diagnosed in the Netherlands and over 1 million worldwide. About half of these patients die of the disease. CRC is most common in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan (Figure 1.1). The Western diet is the most likely cause for the high incidence in these countries. This causation is supported by the increasing trend in CRC incidence in newly industrialized countries and the high CRC incidence in non‐Western immigrants in for example the U.S. and Australia

A Novel Hypothesis on the Sensitivity of the Fecal Occult Blood Test Results of a Joint Analysis of 3 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (Hemoccult II) sensitivity differed widely between screening trials and led to divergent conclusions on the effects of FOBT screening. We used microsimulation modeling to estimate a preclinical colorectal cancer (CRC) duration and sensitivity for unrehydrated FOBT from the data of 3 randomized controlled trials of Minnesota, Nottingham, and Funen. In addition to 2 usual hypotheses on the sensitivity of FOBT, we tested a novel hypothesis where sensitivity is linked to the stage of clinical diagnosis in the situation without screening. METHODS: We used the MIS-CAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate sensitivity and duration, accounting for differences between the trials in demography, background incidence, and trial design. We tested 3 hypotheses for FOBT sensitivity: sensitivity is the same for all preclinical CRC stages, sensitivity increases with each stage, and sensitivity is higher for the stage in which the cancer would have been diagnosed in the absence of screening than for earlier stages. Goodness-of-fit was evaluated by comparing expected and observed rates of screen-detected and interval CRC. RESULTS: The hypothesis with a higher sensitivity in the stage of clinical diagnosis gave the best fit. Under this hypothesis, sensitivity of FOBT was 51% in the stage of clinical diagnosis and 19% in earlier stages. The average duration of preclinical CRC was estimated at 6.7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis corroborated a long duration of preclinical CRC, with FOBT most sensitive in the stage of clinical diagnosis. Cancer 2009;115:2410-9. (C) 2009 American Cancer Society

Optimizing screening with faecal immunochemical test for both sexes - Cost-effectiveness analysis from Finland

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The AuthorsA faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening pilot was introduced in Finland in 2019 with sex-specific screening strategies. This study aims to model cost-effectiveness of sex-specific strategies for the whole population, and to assess whether the current strategies are optimal. We developed separate MISCAN-Colon models, including different FIT performances, for the Finnish men and women using the first-year data of the FIT screening pilot. We evaluated 180 FIT strategies varying in FIT cut-off, screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening, and compared them to no-screening by sex. We used incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to identify the optimal strategy after combining all male and female strategies and restricting the analysis by costs and referral rate to diagnostic colonoscopies. Offering annual FIT screening with a cut-off of 25 μg/g at 50–79 years in men and with a cut-off of 10 μg/g at 55–69 years in women was optimal. This combined strategy prevented 28% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 55% of CRC deaths with acceptable costs (ICER = 9000€/life-years gained). Screening at the current target age of 60–74 years was suboptimal for both sexes. Among strategies with the same target age and interval for both sexes, expected benefits from optimal screening were lower but still reasonable. Our results support a wider age range of screening in men, and a lower cut-off for a positive test in women when restrictions on colonoscopy capacity and costs are in place. National FIT screening program should start at younger age.Peer reviewe

Utilization of surveillance after polypectomy in the Medicare population

Background: Surveillance in patients with previous polypectomy was underused in the Medicare population in 1994. This study investigates whether expansion of Medicare reimbursement for colonoscopy screening in high-risk individuals has reduced the inappropriate use of surveillance. Methods: We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to estimate time to surveillance and polyp recurrence rates for Medicare beneficiaries with a colonoscopy with polypectomy between 1998 and 2003 who were followed through 2008 for receipt of surveillance colonoscopy. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to estimate risk factors for: 1) failing to undergo surveillance and 2)

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Abstract Background There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity. Methods We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (pS) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (pA). The non-inferiority margin, pA – pS = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal. Results Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies. Conclusions The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146777/1/12874_2018_Article_643.pd

Development and validation of colorectal cancer risk prediction tools:A comparison of models

Background: Identification of individuals at elevated risk can improve cancer screening programmes by permitting risk-adjusted screening intensities. Previous work introduced a prognostic model using sex, age and two preceding faecal haemoglobin concentrations to predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the next screening round. Using data of 3 screening rounds, this model attained an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 for predicting advanced neoplasia (AN). We validated this existing logistic regression (LR) model and attempted to improve it by applying a more flexible machine-learning approach. Methods: We trained an existing LR and a newly developed random forest (RF) model using updated data from 219,257 third-round participants of the Dutch CRC screening programme until 2018. For both models, we performed two separate out-of-sample validations using 1,137,599 third-round participants after 2018 and 192,793 fourth-round participants from 2020 onwards. We evaluated the AUC and relative risks of the predicted high-risk groups for the outcomes AN and CRC. Results: For third-round participants after 2018, the AUC for predicting AN was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76–0.77) using LR and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.77–0.77) using RF. For fourth-round participants, the AUCs were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72–0.74) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72–0.74) for the LR and RF models, respectively. For both models, the 5% with the highest predicted risk had a 7-fold risk of AN compared to average, whereas the lowest 80% had a risk below the population average for third-round participants. Conclusion: The LR is a valid risk prediction method in stool-based screening programmes. Although predictive performance declined marginally, the LR model still effectively predicted risk in subsequent screening rounds. An RF did not improve CRC risk prediction compared to an LR, probably due to the limited number of available explanatory variables. The LR remains the preferred prediction tool because of its interpretability.</p

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

BACKGROUND: The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal. METHODS: The authors simulated the 1980 through 2030 United States population of individuals aged 50 to 100 years using microsimulation modeling. Test-specific historical screening rates were based on National Health Interview Survey data for 1987 through 2013. The effects of increasing screening rates from approximately 58% in 2013 to 80% in 2018 were compared to a scenario in which the screening rate remained approximately constant. The outcomes were cancer incidence and mortality rates and numbers of CRC cases and deaths during short-term follow-up (2013-2020) and extended follow-up (2013-2030). RESULTS: Increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2018 would reduce CRC incidence rates by 17% and mortality rates by 19% during short-term follow-up and by 22% and 33%, respectively, during extended follow-up. These reductions would amount to a total of 277,000 averted new cancers and 203,000 averted CRC deaths from 2013 through 2030. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the goal of increasing the uptake of CRC screening in the United States to 80% by 2018 may have a considerable public health impact by averting approximately 280,000 new cancer cases and 200,000 cancer deaths within <20 years