Population health outcomes of blood-based screening for colorectal cancer in comparison to current screening modalities: insights from a discrete-event simulation model incorporating longitudinal adherence.

AIM: Insufficient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening impedes individual and population health benefits, with about one-third of individuals non-adherent to available screening options. The impact of poor adherence is inadequately considered in most health economics models, limiting the evaluation of real-world population-level screening outcomes. This study introduces the CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, utilizing real-world adherence scenarios to assess the effectiveness of a blood-based test (BBT) compared to existing strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CAN-SCREEN model evaluates various CRC screening strategies per 1,000 screened individuals for ages 45-75. Adherence is modeled in two ways: (1) full adherence and (2) longitudinally declining adherence. BBT performance is based on recent pivotal trial data while existing strategies are informed using literature. The full adherence model is calibrated using previously published Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models. Outcomes, including life-years gained (LYG), CRC cases averted, CRC deaths averted, and colonoscopies, are compared to no screening. RESULTS: Longitudinal adherence modeling reveals differences in the relative ordering of health outcomes and resource utilization, as measured by the number of colonoscopies performed per 1,000, between screening modalities. BBT outperforms the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA) test with more CRC deaths averted (13) compared to FIT and mtsDNA (7, 11), more CRC cases averted (27 vs. 16, 22) and higher LYG (214 vs. 157, 199). BBT yields fewer CRC deaths averted compared to colonoscopy (13, 15) but requires fewer colonoscopies (1,053 vs. 1,928). LIMITATIONS: Due to limited data, the CAN-SCREEN model with longitudinal adherence leverages evidence-informed assumptions for the natural history and real-world longitudinal adherence to screening. CONCLUSIONS: The CAN-SCREEN model demonstrates that amongst non-invasive CRC screening strategies, those with higher adherence yield more favorable health outcomes as measured by CRC deaths averted, CRC cases averted, and LYG.

This study explored the impact of poor adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, where about one-third of people face barriers to screening. Common models don't consider real-world adherence, so we introduced the CAN-SCREEN model. It uses real-world data to determine how well a blood-based test (BBT) could work compared to existing tests. We studied people starting CRC screening at age 45. The model looked at two adherence scenarios: assuming everyone follows guidelines, and using real-world data about how people follow screening guidelines over time. The BBT's performance was based on a recent study, and we compared it to existing methods using data from the literature. Results per 1,000 simulated patients showed that the BBT outperforms two guideline-recommended stool-based tests, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the multitarget stool DNA (mtsDNA) test, with more CRC deaths averted (13) compared to FIT and mtsDNA (7, 11), more CRC cases averted (27 vs. 16, 22) and higher LYG (214 vs. 157, 199). BBT prevents less CRC deaths than colonoscopy (13 vs. 15), but it leads to fewer colonoscopies (1,053 compared to 1,928). Despite some limitations due to limited data, our model relies on informed assumptions for the natural history of CRC and real-world adherence. In conclusion, our CAN-SCREEN model shows that CRC screening strategies combining good test performance with high adherence give better health outcomes. Adding a blood test, which could be easier for people to use, could save lives and reduce the number of colonoscopies needed.

Associations Among Optimal Lung Cancer Treatment, Clinical Outcomes, and Health Care Utilization in Patients Who Underwent Comprehensive Genomic Profiling.

BACKGROUND: Although immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies are contraindicated as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with ALK rearrangement and EGFR mutation, many receive them. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between optimal first-line treatment in this population and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Claims and genomic data from patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC were extracted from a nationally representative GuardantINFORM dataset. Patients who had their first claim mentioning advanced or metastatic NSCLC between March 2019 and February 2020 and had ALK rearrangement or EGFR mutation detected by comprehensive genomic profiling were included in this study. Patients were classified as having received optimal or suboptimal first-line treatment. Claims were reviewed to determine real-world time to next treatment, real-world time to discontinuation, and health services utilization (emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient) in the 12 months following first-line treatment initiation. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models. Health services utilization was compared between the groups using t tests and negative binomial models. RESULTS: Of the 359 patients included, 280 (78.0%) received optimal first-line treatment. Optimally treated patients had longer median real-world time to next treatment (11.2 vs 4.4 months; P<.01) and real-world time to discontinuation (10.4 vs 1.9 months; P<.01). The optimal group had significantly fewer emergency department presentations (0.76 vs 1.27; P<.01) and outpatient visits (22.9 vs 42.7; P<.01) than the suboptimal group but did not significantly differ in inpatient utilization. Adjusted utilization analysis yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSCLC who received optimal treatment, as determined by comprehensive genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA testing (Guardant360), had significantly superior clinical and utilization outcomes, reinforcing existing guidelines recommending profiling at the onset of treatment.