Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs. METHODS: Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured. RESULTS: There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society provides an update of CRC incidence, survival, and mortality rates and trends. Incidence data through 2013 were provided by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, the National Program of Cancer Registries, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data through 2014 were provided by the National Center for Health Statistics. CRC incidence rates are highest in Alaska Natives and blacks and lowest in Asian/Pacific Islanders, and they are 30% to 40% higher in men than in women. Recent temporal patterns are generally similar by race and sex, but differ by age. Between 2000 and 2013, incidence rates in adults aged ≥50 years declined by 32%, with the drop largest for distal tumors in people aged ≥65 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.48-0.52) and smallest for rectal tumors in ages 50 to 64 years (male IRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; female IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08). Overall CRC incidence in individuals ages ≥50 years declined from 2009 to 2013 in every state except Arkansas, with the decrease exceeding 5% annually in 7 states; however, rectal tumor incidence in those ages 50 to 64 years was stable in most states. Among adults aged <50 years, CRC incidence rates increased by 22% from 2000 to 2013, driven solely by tumors in the distal colon (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.35) and rectum (IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31). Similar to incidence patterns, CRC death rates decreased by 34% among individuals aged ≥50 years during 2000 through 2014, but increased by 13% in those aged <50 years. Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing initiation of screening at age 50 years (average risk) or earlier (eg, family history of CRC/advanced adenomas) and eliminating disparities in high-quality treatment. In addition, research is needed to elucidate causes for increasing CRC in young adults. CA Cancer J Clin 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:177-193. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Faecal occult blood loss accurately predicts future detection of colorectal cancer. A prognostic model.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the prognostic potential of repeated faecal haemoglobin (F-Hb) concentration measurements in faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Prognostic model. SETTING: Dutch biennial FIT-based screening programme during 2014-2018. PARTICIPANTS: 265 881 participants completing three rounds of FIT, with negative test results (F-Hb <47 µg Hb/g faeces) in rounds 1 and 2. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy follow-up in participants with a positive FIT (F-Hb ≥47 µg Hb/g faeces). MAIN OUTCOMES: We evaluated prognostic models for detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in round 3, with as predictors, participant age, sex, F-Hb in rounds 1 and 2, and categories/combinations/non-linear transformations of F-Hb. Primary evaluation criteria included: risk prediction accuracy (calibration), discrimination of participants with versus without AN or CRC (optimism-adjusted C-statistics, range 0.5-1.0), the degree of risk stratification and C-statistics in external validation. RESULTS: Among study participants, 8806 (3.3%) had a positive FIT result, 3254 (1.2%) had AN detected and 557 (0.2%) had cancer. F-Hb concentrations in rounds 1 and 2 were the strongest outcome predictors, with adjusted ORs of up to 9.4 (95% CI 7.5 to 11.7) for the highest F-Hb category. Risk predictions matched the observed risk for most participants (calibration intercept -0.008 to -0.099; slope 0.982-0.998), and discriminated participants with versus without AN or CRC with C-statistics of 0.78 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.79) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.75), respectively. The predicted risk ranged from 0.4% to 36.7% for AN and from 0.0% to 5.5% for CRC across participants. In external validation, the model retained similar discrimination accuracy for AN (C-statistic 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87) and CRC (C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91). CONCLUSION: Participants at lower versus higher risk of future AN or CRC can be accurately identified based on their age, sex and particularly, prior F-Hb concentrations. Risk stratification should be considered based on this information.

Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were based on hypothetical performance of CRC risk prediction and did not consider the association with competing causes of death. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening using real-world data for CRC risk and competing causes of death. METHODS: Risk predictions for CRC and competing causes of death from a large community-based cohort were used to stratify individuals into risk groups. A microsimulation model was used to optimize colonoscopy screening for each risk group by varying the start age (40-60 years), end age (70-85 years), and screening interval (5-15 years). The outcomes included personalized screening ages and intervals and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform colonoscopy screening (ages 45-75, every 10 years). Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Risk-stratified screening resulted in substantially different screening recommendations, ranging from a one-time colonoscopy at age 60 for low-risk individuals to a colonoscopy every 5 years from ages 40 to 85 for high-risk individuals. Nevertheless, on a population level, risk-stratified screening would increase net quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYG) by only 0.7% at equal costs to uniform screening or reduce average costs by 1.2% for equal QALYG. The benefit of risk-stratified screening improved when it was assumed to increase participation or costs less per genetic test. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized screening for CRC, accounting for competing causes of death risk, could result in highly tailored individual screening programs. However, average improvements across the population in QALYG and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform screening are small.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR. METHODS: We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) could account for a substantial proportion of colorectal cancers. We aimed to increase clarity on SSP prevalence and clinical features. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies published in English since 2000. We included studies of different populations (United States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definitions, adenoma), outcomes (prevalence, clinical features), and study designs (cross-sectional). Random-effects regression was used for meta-analysis where possible. RESULTS: We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies. SSP prevalence varied by world region, from 2.6% in Asia (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-5.9) to 10.5% in Australia (95% CI, 2.8-18.2). Prevalence values did not differ significantly between the United States and Europe (P = .51); the pooled prevalence was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4-5.8), and SSPs accounted for 9.4% of polyps with malignant potential (95% CI, 6.6-12.3). The mean prevalence was higher when assessed through high-performance examinations (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.0-14.2; P = .04) and with an alternative definition of clinically relevant serrated polyps (12.3%; 95% CI, 9.3-15.4; P < .001). Increases in prevalence with age were not statistically significant, and prevalence did not differ significantly by sex. Compared with adenomas, a higher proportion of SSPs were solitary (69.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-92.1; P = .08), with diameters of 10 mm or more (19.3%; 95% CI, 12.4-26.2; P = .13) and were proximal (71.5%; 95% CI, 63.5-79.5; P = .008). The mean ages for detection of SSP without dysplasia, with any or low-grade dysplasia, and with high-grade dysplasia were 60.8 years, 65.6 years, and 70.2 years, respectively. The range for proportions of SSPs with dysplasia was 3.7%-42.9% across studies, possibly reflecting different study populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review, we found that SSPs are relatively uncommon compared with adenoma. More research is needed on appropriate diagnostic criteria, variations in detection, and long-term risk.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Objective: To provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer. Exposures: Screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies. Results: Estimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The American Cancer Society has recommended initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45 years instead of 50 years. We estimated the cost effectiveness and national effects of adopting this recommendation. METHODS: We compared screening strategies and alternative resource allocations in a validated Markov model. We based national projections on screening participation rates by age and census data. RESULTS: Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 years in 1000 persons averted 4 CRCs and 2 CRC deaths, gained 14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost $33,900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies. These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 currently unscreened 55-year-old persons or 342 currently unscreened 65-year-old persons, through age 75 years. These alternatives averted 13-14 CRC cases and 6-7 CRC deaths and gained 27-28 discounted QALYs while saving $163,700-$445,800. Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from a fecal immunochemical test yielded greater benefits and savings. Initiation of fecal immunochemical testing at age 45 years instead of 50 years cost $7700/QALY gained. Shifting current age-specific screening rates to 5 years earlier could avert 29,400 CRC cases and 11,100 CRC deaths over the next 5 years but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion. Improving screening rates to 80% in persons who are 50-75 years old would avert nearly 3-fold more CRC deaths at one third the incremental cost. CONCLUSIONS: In a Markov model analysis, we found that starting CRC screening at age 45 years is likely to be cost effective. However, greater benefit, at lower cost, could be achieved by increasing participation rates for unscreened older and higher-risk persons.

High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas has limited long-term evidence to support current practice. Objective: To compare the lifetime benefits and costs of high- versus low-intensity surveillance. Design: Microsimulation model. Data Sources: U.S. cancer registry, cost data, and published literature. Target Population: U.S. patients aged 50, 60, or 70 years with low-risk adenomas (LRAs) (1 to 2 small adenomas) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs) (3 to 10 small adenomas or ≥1 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: No further screening or surveillance, routine screening after 10 years, low-intensity surveillance (10 years after LRA removal and 5 years after HRA removal), and high-intensity surveillance (5 years after LRA removal and 3 years after HRA removal). Outcome Measures: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Without surveillance or screening, lifetime CRC incidence for patients aged 50 years was 10.9% after LRA removal and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or high-intensity surveillance decreased incidence by 39%, 46% to 48%, and 55% to 56%, respectively. Incidence of CRC and surveillance benefits were higher for adenomas detected at FIT screening and lower for older patients. High-intensity surveillance cost less than $30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with low-intensity surveillance. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: High-intensity surveillance cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained in most alternative scenarios for adenoma recurrence, CRC incidence, longevity, quality of life, screening ages, surveillance ages, test performance, disutilities, and cost. Limitation: Few surveillance outcome data exist. Conclusion: The model suggests that high-intensity surveillance as recommended in the United States provides modest but clinically relevant benefits over low-intensity surveillance at acceptable cost. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

The impact of the rising colorectal cancer incidence in young adults on the optimal age to start screening: Microsimulation analysis I to inform the American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon) model was used to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines. In this study, 1 of 2 microsimulation analyses to inform the update of the American Cancer Society CRC screening guideline, the authors re-evaluated the optimal screening strategies in light of the increase in CRC diagnosed in young adults. METHODS: The authors adjusted the MISCAN-Colon model to reflect the higher CRC incidence in young adults, who were assumed to carry forward escalated disease risk as they age. Life-years gained (LYG; benefit), the number of colonoscopies (COL; burden) and the ratios of incremental burden to benefit (efficiency ratio [ER] = ΔCOL/ΔLYG) were projected for different screening strategies. Strategies differed with respect to test modality, ages to start (40 years, 45 years, and 50 years) and ages to stop (75 years, 80 years, and 85 years) screening, and screening intervals (depending on screening modality). The authors then determined the model-recommended strategies in a similar way as was done for the US Preventive Services Task Force, using ER thresholds in accordance with the previously accepted ER of 39. RESULTS: Because of the higher CRC incidence, model-predicted LYG from screening increased compared with the previous analyses. Consequently, the balance of burden to benefit of screening improved and now 10-yearly colonoscopy screening starting at age 45 years resulted in an ER of 32. Other recommended strategies included fecal immunochemical testing annually, flexible sigmoidoscopy screening every 5 years, and computed tomographic colonography every 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This decision-analysis suggests that in light of the increase in CRC incidence among young adults, screening may be offered earlier than has previously been recommended. Cancer 2018;124:2964-73. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Optimizing colorectal cancer screening by race and sex: Microsimulation analysis II to inform the American Cancer Society colorectal cancer screening guideline.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk varies by race and sex. This study, 1 of 2 microsimulation analyses to inform the 2018 American Cancer Society CRC screening guideline, explored the influence of race and sex on optimal CRC screening strategies. METHODS: Two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network microsimulation models, informed by US incidence data, were used to evaluate a variety of screening methods, ages to start and stop, and intervals for 4 demographic subgroups (black and white males and females) under 2 scenarios for the projected lifetime CRC risk for 40-year-olds: 1) assuming that risk had remained stable since the early screening era and 2) assuming that risk had increased proportionally to observed incidence trends under the age of 40 years. Model-based screening recommendations were based on the predicted level of benefit (life-years gained) and burden (required number of colonoscopies), the incremental burden-to-benefit ratio, and the relative efficiency in comparison with strategies with similar burdens. RESULTS: When lifetime CRC risk was assumed to be stable over time, the models differed in the recommended age to start screening for whites (45 vs 50 years) but consistently recommended screening from the age of 45 years for blacks. When CRC risk was assumed to be increased, the models recommended starting at the age of 45 years, regardless of race and sex. Strategies recommended under both scenarios included colonoscopy every 10 or 15 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing, and computed tomographic colonography every 5 years through the age of 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Microsimulation modeling suggests that CRC screening should be considered from the age of 45 years for blacks and for whites if the lifetime risk has increased proportionally to the incidence for younger adults. Cancer 2018;124:2974-85. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

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.

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.

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.

Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delays in diagnostic testing after a positive result from a screening test can undermine the benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but there are few empirical data on the effects of such delays. We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the consequences of time to colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: We used an established microsimulation model to simulate an average-risk United States population cohort that underwent annual FIT screening (from ages 50 to 75 years), with follow-up colonoscopy examinations for individuals with positive results (cutoff, 20 µg/g) at different time points in the following 12 months. Main evaluated outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality; additional outcomes were total life-years lost and net costs of screening. RESULTS: For individuals who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy within 2 weeks of a positive result from an FIT, the estimated lifetime risk of CRC incidence was 35.5/1000 persons, and mortality was 7.8/1000 persons. Every month added until colonoscopy was associated with a 0.1/1000 person increase in cancer incidence risk (an increase of 0.3%/month, compared with individuals who received colonoscopies within 2 weeks) and mortality risk (increase of 1.4%/month). Among individuals who received colonoscopy examinations 12 months after a positive result from an FIT, the incidence of CRC was 37.0/1000 persons (increase of 4%, compared with 2 weeks), and mortality was 9.1/1000 persons (increase of 16%). Total years of life gained for the entire screening cohort decreased from an estimated 93.7/1000 persons with an almost immediate follow-up colonoscopy (cost savings of $208 per patient, compared with no colonoscopy) to 84.8/1000 persons with follow-up colonoscopies at 12 months (decrease of 9%; cost savings of $100/patient, compared with no colonoscopy). CONCLUSIONS: By using a microsimulation model of an average-risk United States screening cohort, we estimated that delays of up to 12 months after a positive result from an FIT can produce proportional losses of up to nearly 10% in overall screening benefits. These findings indicate the importance of timely follow-up colonoscopy examinations of patients with positive results from FITs.