Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test may increase screening participation. However, blood tests may be less effective than current guideline-endorsed options. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers blood tests with sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%. In this study, we investigate whether a blood test that meets these criteria is cost-effective. METHODS: Three microsimulation models for CRC (MISCAN-Colon, CRC-SPIN, and SimCRC) were used to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening (from ages 45 to 75 years) compared to no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with an FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The CMS coverage criteria were used as performance characteristics of the hypothetical blood test. We varied screening ages, test performance characteristics, and screening uptake in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Without screening, the models predicted 77-88 CRC cases and 32-36 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals, costing $5.3-$5.8 million. Compared to no screening, blood-based screening was cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600-$43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). However, compared to FIT, triennial stool DNA testing combined with FIT, and colonoscopy, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT remained more effective (+5-24 QALYG) and less costly (-$3.2 to -$3.5 million) than blood-based screening even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT. CONCLUSION: Even with higher screening uptake, triennial blood-based screening, with the CMS-specified minimum performance sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 90%, was not projected to be cost-effective compared with established strategies for colorectal cancer screening.

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.

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.

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.

Testing for Verification Bias in Reported Malignancy Risks for Side-Branch Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: A Simulation Modeling Approach.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to test for the possibility that published malignancy risks for side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are overestimates, likely due to verification bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We tested for possible verification bias using simulation modeling techniques. First, in age-defined hypothetical cohorts of 10 million persons, we projected the frequency of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) arising from side-branch IPMNs over 5 years using published estimates of their prevalence (4.4%) and rate of malignant transformation (1.9%). Second, we projected the total number of PDAC cases in corresponding cohorts over the same time horizon using national cancer registry data. For each cohort, we determined whether the percentage of all PDAC cases that arose from side-branch IPMNs (i.e., side-branch IPMN-associated PDAC cases) was clinically plausible using an upper limit of 10% to define plausibility, as estimated from the literature. Model assumptions and parameter uncertainty were evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Across all cohorts, percentages of side-branch IPMN-associated PDACs greatly exceeded 10%. In the base case (mean age = 55.7 years), 80% of PDAC cases arose from side-branch IPMNs (7877/9786). In the oldest cohort evaluated (mean age = 75 years), this estimate was 76% (14,227/18,714). In a secondary analysis, we found that if an upper limit threshold of 10% for side-branch IPMN-associated PDAC was imposed, the model-predicted rate of malignancy for side-branch IPMNs would be less than 0.24% over a 5-year time horizon, substantially lower than most literature-based estimates. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that reported malignancy risks associated with side-branch IPMNs are likely to be overestimates and imply the presence of verification bias.

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.

Imaging Follow-up of Low-Risk Incidental Pancreas and Kidney Findings: Effects of Patient Age and Comorbidity on Projected Life Expectancy.

Purpose To determine the effects of patient age and comorbidity level on life expectancy (LE) benefits associated with imaging follow-up of Bosniak IIF renal cysts and pancreatic side-branch (SB) intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). Materials and Methods A decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate LE benefits was developed. Hypothetical cohorts with varied age (60-80 years) and comorbidities (none, mild, moderate, or severe) were evaluated. For each finding, LE projections from two strategies were compared: imaging follow-up and no imaging follow-up. Under follow-up, it was assumed that cancers associated with the incidental finding were successfully treated before they spread. For patients without follow-up, mortality risks from Bosniak IIF cysts (renal cell carcinoma) and SBIPMNs (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma) were incorporated. Model assumptions and parameter uncertainty were evaluated in sensitivity analysis. Results In the youngest, healthiest cohorts (age, 60 years; no comorbidities), projected LE benefits from follow-up were as follows: Bosniak IIF cyst, 6.5 months (women) and 5.8 months (men); SBIPMN, 6.4 months (women) and 5.3 months (men). Follow-up of Bosniak IIF cysts in 60-year-old women with severe comorbidities yielded a LE benefit of 3.9 months; in 80-year-old women with no comorbidities, the benefit was 2.8 months, and with severe comorbidities the benefit was 1.5 months. Similar trends were observed in men and for SBIPMN. Results were sensitive to the performance of follow-up for cancer detection; malignancy risks; and stage at presentation of malignant, unfollowed Bosniak IIF cysts. Conclusion With progression of age and comorbidity level, follow-up of low-risk incidental findings yields increasingly limited benefits for patients. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Modeling treatment outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Projected benefits of a test to optimize treatment selection.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), substantial emphasis has been placed on diagnostic tests that can discern which of two treatment options - primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (NACT+ICS) - optimizes patient-level outcomes. Our goal was to project potential life expectancy (LE) gains that could be achieved by use of such a test. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to project LE for patients with stage IIIC EOC. We compared: a "standard-of-care" strategy, in which patients were triaged to PCS vs. NACT+ICS based on current clinical practice; and a "test" strategy, in which patients were triaged based on results of a hypothetical test. We identified those test performance characteristics for which the test strategy outperformed the standard-of-care strategy, from a LE standpoint. Effects of parameter uncertainty were evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Even with a perfect test, the LE gain was modest (LE with test vs. standard-of-care strategy=67.6 vs. 66.4months; LE gain=1.2months). In order to outperform the standard-of-care, the test had to have a high probability of correctly identifying "resectable" patients at PCS (i.e. those for whom complete or optimal cytoreduction would be possible); this test property was more important than correct triage of unresectable patients to NACT+ICS. Results were sensitive to the proportion of patients whose underlying disease was resectable at PCS. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic tests that are designed to triage patients with advanced stage EOC will likely have only a modest effect on LE.

Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Comparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds. RESULTS: The screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.

Development of new non-invasive tests for colorectal cancer screening: the relevance of information on adenoma detection.

Researchers are actively pursuing the development of a new non-invasive test (NIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an alternative to fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). The majority of pilot studies focus on the detection of invasive CRC rather than precursor lesions (i.e., adenomas). We aimed to explore the relevance of adenoma detection for the viability of an NIT for CRC screening by considering a hypothetical test that does not detect adenomas beyond chance. We used the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer (SimCRC) to estimate the effectiveness of CRC screening and the lifetime costs (payers' perspective) for a cohort of US 50-years-old persons to whom CRC screening is offered from age 50-75. We compared annual screening with guaiac and immunochemical FOBTs (with sensitivities up to 70 and 24% for CRC and adenomas, respectively) to annual screening with a hypothetical NIT (sensitivity of 90% for CRC, no detection of adenomas beyond chance, specificity and cost similar to FOBTs). Screening with the NIT was not more effective, but was 29-44% more costly than screening with FOBTs. The findings were robust to varying the screening interval, the NIT's sensitivity for CRC, adherence rates favoring the NIT, and the NIT's unit cost. A comparative modelling approach using a model that assumes a shorter adenoma dwell time (MISCAN-COLON) confirmed the superiority of the immunochemical FOBT over an NIT with no ability to detect adenomas. Information on adenoma detection is crucial to determine whether a new NIT is a viable alternative to FOBTs for CRC screening. Current evidence thus lacks an important piece of information to identify marker candidates that hold real promise and deserve further (large-scale) evaluation.

Cost-Savings to Medicare From Pre-Medicare Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals have not received recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before they become Medicare eligible at the age of 65. We aimed to estimate the long-term implications of increased CRC screening in the pre-Medicare population (50-64 y) on costs in the pre-Medicare and Medicare populations (65+ y). METHODS: We used 2 independently developed microsimulation models [Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon (MISCAN) and Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)] to project CRC screening and treatment costs under 2 scenarios, starting in 2010: "current trends" (60% of the population up-to-date with screening recommendations) and "enhanced participation" (70% up-to-date). The population was scaled to the projected US population for each year between 2010 and 2060. Costs per year were derived by age group (50-64 and 65+ y). RESULTS: By 2060, the discounted cumulative total costs in the pre-Medicare population were $35.7 and $28.1 billion higher with enhanced screening participation, than in the current trends scenario ($252.1 billion with MISCAN and $239.5 billion with SimCRC, respectively). Because of CRC treatment savings with enhanced participation, cumulative costs in the Medicare population were $18.3 and $32.7 billion lower (current trends: $423.5 billion with MISCAN and $372.8 billion with SimCRC). Over the 50-year time horizon an estimated 60% (MISCAN) and 89% (SimCRC) of the increased screening costs could be offset by savings in Medicare CRC treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population could reduce CRC incidence and mortality, whereas the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long-term Medicare treatment savings.

Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits.

BACKGROUND: Harms and benefits of cancer screening depend on age and comorbid conditions, but reliable estimates are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the harms and benefits of cancer screening by age and comorbid conditions to inform decisions about screening cessation. DESIGN: Collaborative modeling with 7 cancer simulation models and common data on average and comorbid condition level-specific life expectancy. SETTING: U.S. population. PATIENTS: U.S. cohorts aged 66 to 90 years in 2010 with average health or 1 of 4 comorbid condition levels: none, mild, moderate, or severe. INTERVENTION: Mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, or fecal immunochemical testing. MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained (benefits); false-positive test results and overdiagnosed cancer cases (harms). For each comorbid condition level, the age at which harms and benefits of screening were similar to that for persons with average health having screening at age 74 years. RESULTS: Screening 1000 women with average life expectancy at age 74 years for breast cancer resulted in 79 to 96 (range across models) false-positive results, 0.5 to 0.8 overdiagnosed cancer cases, and 0.7 to 0.9 prevented cancer deaths. Although absolute numbers of harms and benefits differed across cancer sites, the ages at which to cease screening were consistent across models and cancer sites. For persons with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbid conditions, screening until ages 76, 74, 72, and 66 years, respectively, resulted in harms and benefits similar to average-health persons. LIMITATION: Comorbid conditions influenced only life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Comorbid conditions are an important determinant of harms and benefits of screening. Estimates of screening benefits and harms by comorbid condition can inform discussions between providers and patients about personalizing screening cessation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Pancreatic Cancer Among High-Risk Populations.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) among populations at high risk for the disease. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model of the natural history of PDAC to estimate the lifetime health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of PDAC screening among populations with specific genetic risk factors for PDAC, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, Lynch syndrome, TP53, CDKN2A, and STK11. For each high-risk population, we simulated 29 screening strategies, defined by starting age and frequency. Screening included MRI with follow-up EUS in a subset of patients. Costs of tests were based on Medicare reimbursement for MRI, EUS, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and pancreatectomy. Cancer-related cost by stage of disease and phase of treatment was based on the literature. For each high-risk population, we performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: For men with relative risk (RR) 12.33 (CDKN2A) and RR 28 (STK11), annual screening was cost-effective, starting at age 55 and 40 years, respectively. For women, screening was only cost-effective for those with RR 28 (STK11), with annual screening starting at age 45 years. CONCLUSION: Combined MRI/EUS screening may be a cost-effective approach for the highest-risk populations (among mutations considered, those with RR >12). However, for those with moderate risk (RR, 5-12), screening would only be cost-effective at higher WTP thresholds (eg, $200K USD/QALY) or with once-only screening.

Emulator-based Bayesian calibration of the CISNET colorectal cancer models.

Purpose: To calibrate Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) 's SimCRC, MISCAN-Colon, and CRC-SPIN simulation models of the natural history colorectal cancer (CRC) with an emulator-based Bayesian algorithm and internally validate the model-predicted outcomes to calibration targets. Methods: We used Latin hypercube sampling to sample up to 50,000 parameter sets for each CISNET-CRC model and generated the corresponding outputs. We trained multilayer perceptron artificial neural networks (ANN) as emulators using the input and output samples for each CISNET-CRC model. We selected ANN structures with corresponding hyperparameters (i.e., number of hidden layers, nodes, activation functions, epochs, and optimizer) that minimize the predicted mean square error on the validation sample. We implemented the ANN emulators in a probabilistic programming language and calibrated the input parameters with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based algorithms to obtain the joint posterior distributions of the CISNET-CRC models' parameters. We internally validated each calibrated emulator by comparing the model-predicted posterior outputs against the calibration targets. Results: The optimal ANN for SimCRC had four hidden layers and 360 hidden nodes, MISCAN-Colon had 4 hidden layers and 114 hidden nodes, and CRC-SPIN had one hidden layer and 140 hidden nodes. The total time for training and calibrating the emulators was 7.3, 4.0, and 0.66 hours for SimCRC, MISCAN-Colon, and CRC-SPIN, respectively. The mean of the model-predicted outputs fell within the 95% confidence intervals of the calibration targets in 98 of 110 for SimCRC, 65 of 93 for MISCAN, and 31 of 41 targets for CRC-SPIN. Conclusions: Using ANN emulators is a practical solution to reduce the computational burden and complexity for Bayesian calibration of individual-level simulation models used for policy analysis, like the CISNET CRC models. In this work, we present a step-by-step guide to constructing emulators for calibrating three realistic CRC individual-level models using a Bayesian approach.

Characteristics of a cost-effective blood test for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Blood-based biomarker tests can potentially change the landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We characterize the conditions under which blood test screening would be as effective and cost-effective as annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or decennial colonoscopy. METHODS: We used the three CISNET-Colon models to compare scenarios of no screening, annual FIT, decennial colonoscopy, and a blood test meeting CMS coverage criteria (74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity). We varied the sensitivity to detect CRC (74%-92%), advanced adenomas (AAs, 10%-50%), screening interval (1-3 years), and test cost ($25-$500). Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG) from screening and costs for an US average-risk 45-year-old cohort. RESULTS: Annual FIT yielded 125-163 QALYG per 1,000 at a cost of $3,811-5,384 per person, whereas colonoscopy yielded 132-177 QALYG at a cost of $5,375-7,031 per person. A blood test with 92% CRC sensitivity and 50% AA sensitivity yielded 117-162 QALYG if used every three years and 133-173 QALYG if used every year but would not be cost-effective if priced above $125 per test. If used every three years, a $500 blood test only meeting CMS coverage criteria yielded 83-116 QALYG, at a cost of $8,559-9,413 per person. CONCLUSION: Blood tests that only meet CMS coverage requirements should not be recommended to patients who would otherwise undergo screening by colonoscopy or FIT due to lower benefit. Blood tests need higher AA sensitivity (above 40%) and lower costs (below $125) to be cost-effective.

Emulator-Based Bayesian Calibration of the CISNET Colorectal Cancer Models.

PURPOSE: To calibrate Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET)'s SimCRC, MISCAN-Colon, and CRC-SPIN simulation models of the natural history colorectal cancer (CRC) with an emulator-based Bayesian algorithm and internally validate the model-predicted outcomes to calibration targets. METHODS: We used Latin hypercube sampling to sample up to 50,000 parameter sets for each CISNET-CRC model and generated the corresponding outputs. We trained multilayer perceptron artificial neural networks (ANNs) as emulators using the input and output samples for each CISNET-CRC model. We selected ANN structures with corresponding hyperparameters (i.e., number of hidden layers, nodes, activation functions, epochs, and optimizer) that minimize the predicted mean square error on the validation sample. We implemented the ANN emulators in a probabilistic programming language and calibrated the input parameters with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based algorithms to obtain the joint posterior distributions of the CISNET-CRC models' parameters. We internally validated each calibrated emulator by comparing the model-predicted posterior outputs against the calibration targets. RESULTS: The optimal ANN for SimCRC had 4 hidden layers and 360 hidden nodes, MISCAN-Colon had 4 hidden layers and 114 hidden nodes, and CRC-SPIN had 1 hidden layer and 140 hidden nodes. The total time for training and calibrating the emulators was 7.3, 4.0, and 0.66 h for SimCRC, MISCAN-Colon, and CRC-SPIN, respectively. The mean of the model-predicted outputs fell within the 95% confidence intervals of the calibration targets in 98 of 110 for SimCRC, 65 of 93 for MISCAN, and 31 of 41 targets for CRC-SPIN. CONCLUSIONS: Using ANN emulators is a practical solution to reduce the computational burden and complexity for Bayesian calibration of individual-level simulation models used for policy analysis, such as the CISNET CRC models. In this work, we present a step-by-step guide to constructing emulators for calibrating 3 realistic CRC individual-level models using a Bayesian approach. HIGHLIGHTS: We use artificial neural networks (ANNs) to build emulators that surrogate complex individual-based models to reduce the computational burden in the Bayesian calibration process.ANNs showed good performance in emulating the CISNET-CRC microsimulation models, despite having many input parameters and outputs.Using ANN emulators is a practical solution to reduce the computational burden and complexity for Bayesian calibration of individual-level simulation models used for policy analysis.This work aims to support health decision scientists who want to quantify the uncertainty of calibrated parameters of computationally intensive simulation models under a Bayesian framework.

Rescreening of persons with a negative colonoscopy result: results from a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Persons with a negative result on screening colonoscopy are recommended to repeat the procedure in 10 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and costs of colonoscopy versus other rescreening strategies after an initial negative colonoscopy result. DESIGN: Microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES: Literature and data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. TARGET POPULATION: Persons aged 50 years who had no adenomas or cancer detected on screening colonoscopy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No further screening or rescreening starting at age 60 years with colonoscopy every 10 years, annual highly sensitive guaiac fecal occult blood testing (HSFOBT), annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or computed tomographic colonography (CTC) every 5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime cases of colorectal cancer, life expectancy, and lifetime costs per 1000 persons, assuming either perfect or imperfect adherence. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Rescreening with any method substantially reduced the risk for colorectal cancer compared with no further screening (range, 7.7 to 12.6 lifetime cases per 1000 persons [perfect adherence] and 17.7 to 20.9 lifetime cases per 1000 persons [imperfect adherence] vs. 31.3 lifetime cases per 1000 persons with no further screening). In both adherence scenarios, the differences in life-years across rescreening strategies were small (range, 30 893 to 30 902 life-years per 1000 persons [perfect adherence] vs. 30 865 to 30 869 life-years per 1000 persons [imperfect adherence]). Rescreening with HSFOBT, FIT, or CTC had fewer complications and was less costly than continuing colonoscopy. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to test-specific adherence rates. LIMITATION: Data on adherence to rescreening were limited. CONCLUSION: Compared with the currently recommended strategy of continuing colonoscopy every 10 years after an initial negative examination, rescreening at age 60 years with annual HSFOBT, annual FIT, or CTC every 5 years provides approximately the same benefit in life-years with fewer complications at a lower cost. Therefore, it is reasonable to use other methods to rescreen persons with negative colonoscopy results. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.