Identifying key factors for the effectiveness of pancreatic cancer screening: A model-based analysis.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) survival is poor, as detection usually occurs late, when treatment options are limited. Screening of high-risk individuals may enable early detection and a more favorable prognosis. Knowledge gaps prohibit establishing the effectiveness of screening. We developed a Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to analyze the impact of relevant uncertainties on the effect of PC screening in high-risk individuals. The model simulates two base cases: one in which lesions always progress to PC and one in which indolent and faster progressive lesions coexist. For each base case, the effect of annual and 5-yearly screening with endoscopic ultrasonography/magnetic resonance imaging was evaluated. The impact of variance in PC risk, screening test characteristics and surgery-related mortality was evaluated using sensitivity analyses. Screening resulted in a reduction of PC mortality by at least 16% in all simulated scenarios. This reduction depended strongly on the natural disease course (annual screening: -57% for "Progressive-only" vs -41% for "Indolent Included"). The number of screen and surveillance tests needed to prevent one cancer death was impacted most by PC risk. A 10% increase in test sensitivity reduced mortality by 1.9% at most. Test specificity is important for the number of surveillance tests. In conclusion, screening reduces PC mortality in all modeled scenarios. The natural disease course and PC risk strongly determines the effectiveness of screening. Test sensitivity seems of lesser influence than specificity. Future research should gain more insight in PC pathobiology to establish the true value of PC screening in high-risk individuals.

Incidence of Interval Colorectal Cancer After Negative Results From First-Round Fecal Immunochemical Screening Tests, by Cutoff Value and Participant Sex and Age.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the incidence of interval cancers between the first and second rounds of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the FOB-Gold fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and the effects of different cutoff values and patient sex and age. METHODS: We collected data from participants in a population-based CRC screening program in the Netherlands who had a negative result from a first-round of FIT screening. We calculated the cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT and the sensitivity of the FIT for detection of CRC at a low (15 µg Hb/g feces) and high (47 µg Hb/g feces) cutoff value. RESULTS: Among the 485,112 participants with a negative result from a FIT, 544 interval cancers were detected; 126 were in the 111,800 participants with negative results from a FIT with the low cutoff value and 418 were in the 373,312 FIT participants with negative results from a FIT with the high cutoff value. The mean age of participants tested with the low cutoff value was 72.0 years and the mean age of participants tested the high cutoff value was 66.7 years. The age-adjusted 2-year cumulative incidence of interval cancer after a negative result from a FIT were 9.5 per 10,000 persons at the low cutoff value vs 13.8 per 10,000 persons at the high cutoff value (P < .005). The age-adjusted sensitivity of the FIT for CRC were 90.5% for the low cutoff value vs 82.9% for the high cutoff (P < .0001). The FIT identified men with CRC with 87.4% sensitivity and women with CRC with 82.6% sensitivity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from a FIT population-based screening program in the Netherlands, we found that incidence of interval CRC after a negative result from a FIT to be low. Although the sensitivity of detection of CRC decreased with a higher FIT cutoff value, it remained above 80%.

Historical and projected hysterectomy rates in the USA: Implications for future observed cervical cancer rates and evaluating prevention interventions.

BACKGROUND: SEER-reported cervical cancer incidence rates reflect the total female population including women no longer at risk due to hysterectomy. Hysterectomy rates have been declining in the United States as alternative treatments have become available, which could result in an apparent increase in SEER-reported cervical cancer rates. We aimed to obtain nationally representative historical data on hysterectomy rates in USA, use trends analysis to project rates back to 1935 and forward to 2035, and then predict the impact of changing hysterectomy rates on SEER-reported cervical cancer rates. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Premedline, Cochrane Central databases and extracted nationally-representative hysterectomy incidence data from 1965 to 2009, including data on the number of cervix-preserving (subtotal) procedures. We then projected rates back to 1935, and forward to 2035 based on trends from joinpoint regression. These rates were then used to estimate hysterectomy prevalence out to 2035, and then to predict the impact of changing hysterectomy rates on SEER-reported cervical cancer rates to 2035. We examined alternative assumptions regarding projected hysterectomy incidence rates out to 2035, including a scenario in which rates decline no further from 2009 rates, and a scenario where rates decline at twice the baseline rate. RESULTS: Estimated age-standardized hysterectomy incidence increased from 2.4 to 10.6 per 1000 women between 1935 and 1975. Thereafter, rates are predicted to fall to 3.9 per 1000 by 2035. Subtotal hysterectomy procedures declined from being the predominant method in 1935 to less than 12% of procedures from 1970 onwards. Consequently, holding all else constant, an increase in SEER-reported age-standardized cervical cancer incidence rates (ages 0-85+) of 9% is expected from 2009 to 2035. The predictions were minimally impacted by alternative scenarios for future hysterectomy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Declining hysterectomy rates have implications for the interpretation of SEER-reported cervical cancer rates. A background increase in cervical cancer rates due to decreasing population hysterectomy exposure may partially offset expected decreases from recent cervical screening changes recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evaluations of new cervical cancer prevention opportunities should consider the background impact of historical and projected hysterectomy rates.

Cost Effectiveness of Age-Specific Screening Intervals for People With Family Histories of Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Relative risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases with age among individuals with a family history of CRC. However, no screening recommendations specify less frequent screening with increasing age. We aimed to determine whether such a refinement would be cost effective. METHODS: We determined the relative risk for CRC for individuals based on age and number of affected first-degree relatives (FDRs) using data from publications. For each number of affected FDRs, we used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age ranges and intervals. Screening was then optimized sequentially, starting with the youngest age group, and allowing the interval of screening to change at certain ages. Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year were considered cost effective. RESULTS: For people with 1 affected FDR (92% of those with a family history), screening every 3 years beginning at an age of 40 years is most cost effective. If no adenomas are found, the screening interval can gradually be extended to 5 and 7 years, at ages 45 and 55 years, respectively. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more affected FDRs should start screening earlier and at shorter intervals. However, frequency can be reduced if no abnormalities are found. CONCLUSIONS: Using a microsimulation model, we found that for individuals with a family history of CRC, it is cost effective to gradually increase the screening interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of CRC are found in family members.

Quality Monitoring of a FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment is crucial for consistent program performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs using fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). However, literature on the consistency of FIT performance in laboratory medicine was lacking. This study examined the consistency of FIT in testing positive or detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) for different specimen collection devices, lot reagents, and laboratories. METHODS: All participants with a FIT sample with a cutoff concentration of 47 µg Hb/g feces in the Dutch CRC screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included in the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds ratios of collection devices, reagents, and laboratories on testing positive or detecting AN and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: In total, 87519 (6.4%) of the 1371169 participants tested positive. Positivity rates and detection rates of AN differed between collection devices and reagents (all P < 0.01). In contrast, PPVs were not found to vary between collection devices, reagents, or laboratories (all P > 0.05). Positivity rates showed a small difference for laboratories (P = 0.004) but not for detection rates of AN. Size of the population affected by the deviating positivity rates was small (0.1% of the total tested population). CONCLUSIONS: Variations were observed in positivity and detection rates between collection devices and reagents, but there was no detected variation in PPV. Although the overall population effect of these variations on the screened population is expected to be modest, there is room for improvement.

Quality of life assumptions determine which cervical cancer screening strategies are cost-effective.

Quality-adjusted life years are used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). To calculate QALYs, a "utility" (0-1) is used for each health state induced or prevented by the intervention. We aimed to estimate the impact of quality of life (QoL) assumptions (utilities and durations of health states) on CEAs of cervical cancer screening. To do so, 12 alternative sets of utility assumptions were retrieved from published cervical cancer screening CEAs. Two additional sets were based on empirical QoL data that were integrally obtained through two different measures (SF-6D and EQ-5D) from eight groups of women (total n = 3,087), from invitation for screening to diagnosis with cervical cancer. Per utility set we calculated the number of quality-adjusted days lost (QADL) for each relevant health state in cervical cancer screening, by multiplying the study-specific assumed disutilities (i.e., 1-utility) with study-specific durations of the loss in QoL, resulting in 14 "QADL-sets." With microsimulation model MISCAN we calculated cost-effectiveness of 342 alternative screening programs (varying in primary screening test [Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vs. cytology], starting ages, and screening interval) for each of the 14 QADL-sets. Utilities used in CEAs appeared to differ largely. We found that ten QADL-sets from the literature resulted in HPV and two in cytology as preferred primary test. The SF-6D empirical QADL-set resulted in cytology and the EQ-5D one in HPV as preferred primary test. In conclusion, assumed utilities and health state durations determine cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Also, the measure used to empirically assess utilities can be crucial for CEA conclusions.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals. METHODS: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG. RESULTS: Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test. CONCLUSIONS: By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.

Real-Time Monitoring of Results During First Year of Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and Optimization by Altering Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Levels.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After careful pilot studies and planning, the national screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC), with biennial fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), was initiated in The Netherlands in 2014. A national information system for real-time monitoring was developed to allow for timely evaluation. Data were collected from the first year of this screening program to determine the importance of planning and monitoring for optimal screening program performance. METHODS: The national information system of the CRC screening program kept track of the number of invitations sent in 2014, FIT kits returned, and colonoscopies performed. Age-adjusted rates of participation, the number of positive test results, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for advanced neoplasia were determined weekly, quarterly, and yearly. RESULTS: In 2014, there were 741,914 persons invited for FIT; of these, 529,056 (71.3%; 95% CI, 71.2%-71.4%) participated. A few months into the program, real-time monitoring showed that rates of participation and positive test results (10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.8%) were higher than predicted and the PPV was lower (42.1%; 95% CI, 41.3%-42.9%) than predicted based on pilot studies. To reduce the burden of unnecessary colonoscopies and alleviate colonoscopy capacity, the cut-off level for a positive FIT result was increased from 15 to 47 µg Hb/g feces halfway through 2014. This adjustment decreased the percentage of positive test results to 6.7% (95% CI, 6.6%-6.8%) and increased the PPV to 49.1% (95% CI, 48.3%-49.9%). In total, the first year of the Dutch screening program resulted in the detection of 2483 cancers and 12,030 advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Close monitoring of the implementation of the Dutch national CRC screening program allowed for instant adjustment of the FIT cut-off levels to optimize program performance.

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Attendance and diagnostic yield of repeated two-sample faecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on attendance and additional yield of 2-sample faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) screening during multiple rounds. We therefore conducted a population-based colorectal cancer screening trial comparing attendance and yield of repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings. DESIGN: Two randomly selected groups of average-risk subjects aged 50-74 years were invited for two rounds of either 1-sample (n=5007) or 2-sample (n=3197) FIT (OC-sensor Micro) screening. The test was considered positive if at least one sample was positive (cut-off 50 ng/mL; 10 µg haemoglobin/g). RESULTS: The cumulative attendance rate was similar for repeated 1-sample and 2-sample FIT screenings (1-sample FIT: 68.1%; 2-sample FIT: 67.1%, p=0.368). The positivity rate in the second round was lower for 1-sample FIT (6.2%, 95% CI 5.4% to 7.2%) than for 2-sample FIT (8.4%, 95% CI 7.1% to 9.8%, p=0.007), whereas the detection rate of advanced neoplasia (AN, 1-sample FIT: 1.9%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.2%; 2-sample FIT: 1.7%, 95% CI 1.2% to 2.5%, p=0.861) and the positive predictive value (1-sample FIT: 32%, 95% CI 24% to 40%; 2-sample FIT: 21%, 95% CI 15% to 29%, p=0.075) did not differ. After two rounds of screening, the cumulative diagnostic yield of AN for 1-sample FIT was 29.3 per 1000 invitees, compared with 34.0 for 2-sample FIT (p=0.241). CONCLUSIONS: Using 2-sample FIT instead of 1-sample FIT does not result in a higher detection rate of AN in the second round of repeated FIT screening. Furthermore, both strategies lead to a similar yield of AN over two rounds. These findings imply that 1-sample FIT screening is preferred over 2-sample FIT screening.

Impact of adenoma detection on the benefit of faecal testing vs. colonoscopy for colorectal cancer.

Colonoscopy quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates, varies widely across providers and is inversely related to patients' post-colonoscopy cancer risk. This has unknown consequences for the benefits of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) vs. primary colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Using an established microsimulation model, we predicted the lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality benefits of annual FIT vs. 10-yearly colonoscopy screening at differing ADR levels (quintiles; averages 15.3-38.7%), with colonoscopy performance assumptions estimated from community-based data on physician ADRs and patients' post-colonoscopy risk of cancer. For patients receiving FIT screening with follow-up colonoscopy by physicians from the highest ADR quintile, simulated lifetime cancer incidence and mortality were 28.8 and 5.4 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 20.6 and 4.4 for primary colonoscopy screening (risk ratios, RR = 1.40; 95% probability interval (PI), 1.19-1.71 for incidence, and RR = 1.22; 95%PI, 1.02-1.54 for mortality). With every 5% point ADR decrease, lifetime cancer incidence was predicted to increase on average 9.0% for FIT vs. 12.3% for colonoscopy, and mortality increased 9.9% vs. 13.3%. In ADR quintile 1, simulated mortality was lower for FIT than colonoscopy screening (10.1 vs. 11.8; RR = 0.85; 95%PI, 0.83-0.90), while incidences were more similar. This suggests that relative cancer incidence and mortality reductions for FIT vs. colonoscopy screening may differ by ADR, with fewer predicted deaths with colonoscopy screening in higher ADR settings and fewer deaths with annual FIT screening in lower ADR settings.

Public Health Benefits of Routine Human Papillomavirus Vaccination for Adults in the Netherlands: A Mathematical Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Expanding routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to adults could be an effective strategy to improve prevention of HPV infection and cervical cancer. METHODS: We evaluated the following adult vaccination strategies for women only and for both women and men in addition to the current girls-only vaccination program in the Netherlands, using the established STDSIM microsimulation model: one-time mass campaign, vaccination at the first cervical cancer screening visit, vaccination at sexual health clinics, and combinations of these strategies. RESULTS: The estimated impact of expanding routine vaccination to adult women is modest, with the largest incremental reductions in the incidence of HPV infection occurring when offering vaccination both at the cervical cancer screening visit and during sexually transmitted infection (STI) consultations (about 20% lower after 50 years for both HPV-16 and HPV-18). Adding male vaccination during STI consultations leads to more-substantial incidence reductions: 63% for HPV-16 and 84% for HPV-18. The incremental number needed to vaccinate among women is 5.48, compared with 0.90 for the current vaccination program. CONCLUSIONS: Offering vaccination to adults, especially at cervical cancer screening visits (for women) and during STI consultations (for both sexes), would substantially reduce HPV incidence and would be an efficient policy option to improve HPV prevention and subsequently avert cervical and possibly male HPV-related cancers.

Nonbleeding adenomas: Evidence of systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test results and their implications for screening effectiveness-A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: If some adenomas do not bleed over several years, they will cause systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. The long-term effectiveness of FIT screening has been estimated without accounting for such systematic false-negativity. There are now data with which to evaluate this issue. METHODS: The authors developed one microsimulation model (MISCAN [MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis]-Colon) without systematic false-negative FIT results and one model that allowed a percentage of adenomas to be systematically missed in successive FIT screening rounds. Both variants were adjusted to reproduce the first-round findings of the Dutch CORERO FIT screening trial. The authors then compared simulated detection rates in the second screening round with those observed, and adjusted the simulated percentage of systematically missed adenomas to those data. Finally, the authors calculated the impact of systematic false-negative FIT results on the effectiveness of repeated FIT screening. RESULTS: The model without systematic false-negativity simulated higher detection rates in the second screening round than observed. These observed rates could be reproduced when assuming that FIT systematically missed 26% of advanced and 73% of nonadvanced adenomas. To reduce the false-positive rate in the second round to the observed level, the authors also had to assume that 30% of false-positive findings were systematically false-positive. Systematic false-negative FIT testing limits the long-term reduction of biennial FIT screening in the incidence of colorectal cancer (35.6% vs 40.9%) and its mortality (55.2% vs 59.0%) in participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study provide convincing evidence based on the combination of real-life and modeling data that a percentage of adenomas are systematically missed by repeat FIT screening. This impairs the efficacy of FIT screening. Cancer 2016;122:1680-8. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need. METHODS: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed. RESULTS: If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

An Accurate Cancer Incidence in Barrett's Esophagus: A Best Estimate Using Published Data and Modeling.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Published estimates for the rate of progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) vary. We used simulation modeling to reconcile published data and more accurately estimate the incidence of EAC among people with BE. METHODS: We calibrated the ERASMUS/UW model (a collaboration between Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands and the University of Washington, Seattle) for EAC to match the 0.18% annual rate of progression from population-based studies. This model was then used to simulate the design of prospective studies, introducing more endoscopic surveillance. We used the model to predict rates of progression for both types of studies and for different periods of follow-up, and compared the predicted rates with published data. RESULTS: For the first 5 years of follow-up, the model reproduced the 0.19% mean annual rate of progression observed in population-based studies; the same disease model predicted a 0.36% annual rate of progression in studies with a prospective design (0.41% reported in published articles). After 20 years, these rates each increased to 0.63% to 0.65% annually, corresponding with a 9.1% to 9.5% cumulative cancer incidence. Between these periods, the difference between the progression rates of both study designs decreased from 91% to 5%. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 5 years after diagnosis, the rate of progression from BE to EAC is likely to more closely approximate the lower estimates reported from population-based studies than the higher estimates reported from prospective studies in which EAC is detected by surveillance. Clinicians should use this information to explain to patients their short-term and long-term risks if no action is taken, and then discuss the risks and benefits of surveillance.

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old. CONCLUSIONS: The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.

The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

BACKGROUND: It is well acknowledged that HPV testing should not be performed at young age and at short intervals. Cytological screening practices have shown that over-screening, i.e., from a younger age and at shorter intervals than recommended, is hard to avoid. We quantified the consequences of a switch to primary HPV screening for over-screened women, taking into account its higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology. METHODS: The health effects of using the HPV test instead of cytology as the primary screening method were determined with the MISCAN-Cervix model. We varied the age women start screening and the interval between screens. In the sensitivity analyses, we varied the background risk of cervical cancer, the HPV prevalence, the discount rate, the triage strategy after cytology, and the test characteristics of both cytology and the HPV test. RESULTS: For women screened 5 yearly from age 30, 32 extra deaths per 100,000 simulated women were prevented when switching from primary cytology to primary HPV testing. For annual screening from age 20, such a switch resulted in 6 extra deaths prevented. It was associated with 9,044 more positive primary screens in the former scenario versus 76,480 in the latter. Under all conditions, for women screened annually, switching to HPV screening resulted in a net loss of quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSION: For over-screened women, the harms associated with a lower test specificity outweigh the life years gained when switching from primary cytology to primary HPV testing. The extent of over-screening should be considered when deciding on inclusion of primary HPV screening in cervical cancer screening guidelines.

Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates.

PURPOSE: Within the last decade, SurePath and ThinPrep [both liquid-based cytology (LBC) tests] have replaced conventional cytology (CC) as primary test method in cervical cancer screening programs of multiple countries. The aim of our study was to examine the effect in the Dutch screening program. METHODS: All primary smears taken within this program from 2000 to 2011 were analyzed using the nationwide registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA) with a follow-up until March 2013. The percentage of smears classified as borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) and >BMD as well as CIN and cervical cancer detection rates were compared between SurePath and ThinPrep versus CC by logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, screen region, socioeconomic status, and calendar time). RESULTS: We included 3,118,685 CC, 1,313,731 SurePath, and 1,584,587 ThinPrep smears. Using SurePath resulted in an increased rate of primary smears classified as >BMD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.16)]. CIN I and II(+) detection rates increased by 14 % [OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08-1.20)] and 8 % [OR = 1.08 (95% CI 1.05-1.12)]. Cervical cancer detection rates were unaffected. Implementing ThinPrep did not result in major alterations of the cytological classification of smears, and it did not affect CIN detection rates. While not significant, cervical cancer detection rates were lower [OR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-1.01)]. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of replacing CC by LBC as primary test method depends on the type of LBC test used. Only the use of SurePath was associated with increased CIN II(+) detection, although it simultaneously increased the detection of CIN I.

Developing a score chart to improve risk stratification of patients with colorectal adenoma.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Current surveillance guidelines risk stratify patients with adenoma by using only one or two factors: adenoma multiplicity or presence of an advanced adenoma characteristic. Combinations of adenoma characteristics are not considered, which limits the predictive value of these guidelines. The aim of the study was to develop a scoring system for more refined risk stratification of patients with adenoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) was used to identify newly diagnosed patients with adenoma in 10 Dutch hospitals between 1988 and 2002. Medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008 for follow-up. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess patient- and adenoma-related predictors of metachronous advanced neoplasia. The prediction model was validated by bootstrapping and cross-validation. A score chart was developed based on identified adenoma-related predictors. The discriminative ability of the prediction model was compared with currently used risk stratifications in surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 2914 patients with adenoma were included (mean age 61 years; 55 % male). The score chart consisted of characteristics that contributed 1 point (size ≥ 10 mm, villous histology, proximal location, having 2 - 4 adenomas) or 2 points (having ≥ 5 adenomas). A patient's adenoma risk score could range from 0 to 5 points. A score of 5 for a 75-year-old man implied a 5-year risk of advanced neoplasia of 46 %. The discriminative ability of the model was moderate (c-statistic 0.712) but better than risk stratifications in current international guidelines, which had c-statistics of 0.642 - 0.674. CONCLUSION: A score chart that combines adenoma-related predictors of advanced colorectal neoplasia optimized the risk stratification of patients with adenoma for appropriate surveillance colonoscopy intervals.

The value of models in informing resource allocation in colorectal cancer screening: the case of The Netherlands.

In May 2011, the Dutch government decided to implement a national programme for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using biennial faecal immunochemical test screening between ages 55 and 75. Decision modelling played an important role in informing this decision, as well as in the planning and implementation of the programme afterwards. In this overview, we illustrate the value of models in informing resource allocation in CRC screening using the role that decision modelling has played in the Dutch CRC screening programme as an example.