Revised Australian national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: family history.

INTRODUCTION: Screening is an effective means for colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Family history is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. We describe the rationale, evidence and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by family history for people without a genetic syndrome, as reported in the 2017 revised Australian guidelines. Main recommendations: Based on 10-year risks of colorectal cancer, people at near average risk due to no or weak family history (category 1) are recommended screening by immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years from age 50 to 74 years. Individuals with moderate risk due to their family history (category 2) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 40 to 49 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 to 74 years. People with a high risk due to their family history (category 3) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 35 to 44 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 45 to 74 years. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: By 2019, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will offer all Australians free biennial iFOBT screening from age 50 to 74 years, consistent with the recommendations in these guidelines for category 1. Compared with the 2005 guidelines, there are some minor changes in the family history inclusion criteria for categories 1 and 2; the genetic syndromes have been removed from category 3 and, as a consequence, colonoscopy screening is now every 5 years; and for categories 2 and 3, screening begins with iFOBT for people aged 40 and 35 years, respectively, before transitioning to colonoscopy after 10 years.

Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Potential Age Extensions to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is rolling out 2-yearly immunochemical fecal occult blood test screening in people aged 50 to 74 years. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending the NBCSP to younger and/or older ages. METHODS: A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate the fully rolled-out NBCSP and alternative strategies assuming screening starts at 40 or 45 years and/or ceases at 79 or 84 years given three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence (100%), (ii) high adherence (60%), and (ii) low adherence (40%, as currently achieved). RESULTS: The current NBCSP will reduce colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) by 23% to 51% (36% to 74%) compared with no screening (range reflects participation); extending screening to younger or older ages would result in additional reductions of 2 to 6 (2 to 9) or 1 to 3 (3 to 7) percentage points, respectively. With an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS), only screening from 50 to 74 years [incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER): A$2,984-5,981/LYS) or from 45 to 74 years (ICER: A$17,053-29,512/LYS) remained cost-effective in all participation scenarios. The number-needed-to-colonoscope to prevent a death over the lifetime of a cohort in the current NBCSP is 35 to 49. Starting screening at 45 years would increase colonoscopy demand for program-related colonoscopies by 3% to 14% and be associated with 55 to 170 additional colonoscopies per additional death prevented. CONCLUSIONS: Starting screening at 45 years could be cost-effective, but it would increase colonoscopy demand and would be associated with a less favorable incremental benefits-to-harms trade-off than screening from 50 to 74 years. IMPACT: The study underpins recently updated Australian colorectal cancer management guidelines that recommend that the NBCSP continues to offer bowel screening from 50 to 74 years.

Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia.

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.

Long-term evaluation of benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: No assessment of the National Bowel Screening Program (NBCSP) in Australia, which considers all downstream benefits, costs, and harms, has been done. We aimed to use a comprehensive natural history model and the most recent information about cancer treatment costs to estimate long-term benefits, costs, and harms of the NBCSP (2 yearly immunochemical faecal occult blood testing screening at age 50-74 years) and evaluate the incremental effect of improved screening participation under different scenarios. METHODS: In this modelling study, a microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, which simulates the development of colorectal cancer via both the conventional adenoma-carcinoma and serrated pathways was used to simulate the NBCSP in 2006-40, taking into account the gradual rollout of NBCSP in 2006-20. The base-case scenario assumed 40% screening participation (currently observed behaviour) and two alternative scenarios assuming 50% and 60% participation by 2020 were modelled. Aggregate year-by-year screening, diagnosis, treatment and surveillance-related costs, resource utilisation (number of screening tests and colonoscopies), and health outcomes (incident colorectal cancer cases and colorectal cancer deaths) were estimated, as was the cost-effectiveness of the NBCSP. FINDINGS: With current levels of participation (40%), the NBCSP is expected to prevent 92 200 cancer cases and 59 000 deaths over the period 2015-40; an additional 24 300 and 37 300 cases and 16 800 and 24 800 deaths would be prevented if participation was increased to 50% and 60%, respectively. In 2020, an estimated 101 000 programme-related colonoscopies will be done, associated with about 270 adverse events; an additional 32 500 and 49 800 colonoscopies and 88 and 134 adverse events would occur if participation was increased to 50% and 60%, respectively. The overall number needed to screen (NNS) is 647-788 per death prevented, with 52-59 colonoscopies per death prevented. The programme is cost-effective due to the cancer treatment costs averted (cost-effectiveness ratio compared with no screening at current participation, AUS$3014 [95% uncertainty interval 1807-5583] per life-year saved) in the cost-effectiveness analysis. In the budget impact analysis, reduced annual expenditure on colorectal cancer control is expected by 2030, with expenditure reduced by a cumulative AUS$1·7 billion, AUS$2·0 billion, and AUS$2·1 billion (2015 prices) between 2030 and 2040, at participation rates of 40%, 50%, and 60%, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The NBCSP has potential to save 83 800 lives over the period 2015-40 if coverage rates can be increased to 60%. By contrast, the associated harms, although an important consideration, are at a smaller magnitude at the population level. The programme is highly cost-effective and within a decade of full roll-out, there will be reduced annual health systems expenditure on colorectal cancer control due to the impact of screening. FUNDING: Australia Postgraduate Award PhD Scholarship, Translational Cancer Research Network Top-up scholarship (supported by Cancer Institute NSW) and Cancer Council NSW.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of a biennial faecal occult blood test screening program for bowel cancer in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial bowel cancer screening for Australian residents aged 50-74 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Identification of existing economic models from 1993 to 2010 through searches of PubMed and economic analysis databases, and by seeking expert advice; and additional modelling to determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening for the five million adults in Australia aged 50-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated number of deaths from bowel cancer prevented, costs, and cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year gained [LYG]) of biennial bowel cancer screening. RESULTS: We identified six relevant economic analyses, all of which found colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be very cost-effective, with costs per LYG under $55,000 per year in 2010 Australian dollars. Based on our additional modelling, we conservatively estimate that full implementation of biennial screening for people aged 50-74 years would have gross costs of $150 million, reduce CRC mortality by 15%-25%, prevent 300-500 deaths from bowel cancer, and save 3600-6000 life-years annually, for an undiscounted cost per LYG of $25,000-$41,667, compared with no screening, and not taking cost savings as a result of treatment into consideration. The additional expenditure required, after accounting for reductions in CRC incidence, savings in CRC treatment costs, and existing ad-hoc colonoscopy use, is likely to be less than $50 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: Full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening in Australia can reduce bowel cancer mortality, and is an efficient use of health resources that would require modest additional government investment.

Choice of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: recommendations based on performance characteristics in population studies: a WHO (World Health Organization) and OMED (World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy) report.

OBJECTIVE: There is now strong evidence that screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality of this disease. Various FOBTs are now available with a wide range of evidence supporting their use. The purpose of this study was to review published data on the performance of these FOBTs to provide recommendations for their effective use in screening. METHODS: A joint committee representing the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy was established for this study. A process was designed that would search the literature systematically for evidence of FOBT performance. Criteria for including studies in this paper were established based on study design, cohort size, and performance variables reported. RESULTS: Of the guaiac tests, Hemoccult SENSA had the highest sensitivity for cancer and adenomas but a high test positivity. It had a better readability than the older Hemoccult II test. Immunochemical tests, HemeSelect, FlexSure OBT, and Immudia Hem Sp have acceptable performance characteristics and are easier for participants to use but are more expensive. These tests have been well studied in large cohorts, but only Immudia Hem Sp is commercially available. CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no extensively studied FOBT that fulfills the needs for all target populations worldwide. Choice of FOBT should take into account population dietary compliance and colonoscopy resources: The more sensitive newer tests should be used if dietary compliance is good (in the case of guaiac tests) and colonoscopy resources are adequate for diagnostic workup of people who test positive. Immunochemical tests remove the difficulties created by diet and drug restrictions and are more amenable to standardized development and quality control.