Impact of organised colorectal cancer screening on age-specific population incidences: evidence from a quasi-experimental study in Sweden.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incurs a significant disease burden globally. Organised CRC screening programmes have been widely implemented for early detection and prevention. To understand the public health impact of these programmes, quantitative evidence of changes in overall and age-specific population incidences is fundamental. We aimed to provide such evidence by exploiting a time lag in the implementation of organised screening in Sweden: two out of 21 regions (these two regions comprise nearly 20% of the total Swedish population) have offered organised screening since 2008; the other regions have offered CRC screening since 2021. Using registry data on diagnosed CRC cases and socio-demographics for all regions in Sweden over the period 1970-2019, Bayesian structural time series modelling and difference-in-differences were applied to analyse the impact of screening on age-specific population incidences over time (CRC cases per 100.000 persons/year). After inviting birth-year cohorts aged 60-69 years for stool-based testing, the incidence rate in the 70-74-year age group decreased significantly over time, with an average reduction of - 44·40 (95% CI - 58·15 to - 31·31) from 2011 to 2019 in the intervention regions. In the overall population aged 60-74 years, there was a net incidence decrease of - 7·99 (95% CI - 13·85 to - 2·39) since the initiation of organised screening in the intervention regions (2008-2019). Organised CRC screening for 60-69-year-olds generated a change in age-specific incidence patterns with a long-lasting incidence decrease in the 70-74-year-old population, implying reductions in the excess mortality and burden of the disease.

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: inequities in diagnostic yield.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of colorectal cancer screening are well documented, but the implications on inequities in health gain remain unclear. METHODS: Sixty-year-olds were randomly recruited from the Swedish population between March 2014 and March 2020 and invited to undergo either 2 rounds of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) 2 years apart (n = 60 137) or primary colonoscopy just once (n = 30 400). By linkage to Statistics Sweden's registries, we obtained socioeconomic data. In each defined socioeconomic group, we estimated the cumulative yield of advanced neoplasia in each screening arm (intention-to-screen analysis). In the biennial FIT arm, we predicted the probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm by linear extrapolation of the cumulative yield to (hypothetical) additional rounds of FIT. RESULTS: In the lowest income group, the yield of advanced neoplasia was 1.63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35% to 1.93%) after 2 rounds of FIT vs 1.93% (95% CI = 1.49% to 2.40%) in the primary colonoscopy arm. Extrapolation to a third round of FIT implied a 86% probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm. In the highest income group, we found a more pronounced yield gap between the 2 screening strategies-2.32% (95% CI = 2.15% to 2.49%) vs 3.71% (95% CI = 3.41% to 4.02%)- implying a low (2%) predicted probability of exceeding yield after a third round of FIT. CONCLUSIONS: Yield of advanced neoplasia from 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart was poorer as compared with primary colonoscopy, but the difference was less in lower socioeconomic groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02078804.

Cancer Drugs Reimbursed with Limited Evidence on Overall Survival and Quality of Life: Do Follow-Up Studies Confirm Patient Benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cancer drug costs have increased considerably within healthcare systems, but many drugs lack quality-of-life (QoL) and overall survival (OS) data at the time of reimbursement approval. This study aimed to review the extent of subsequent literature documenting improvements in OS and QoL for cancer drug indications where no such evidence existed at the time of reimbursement approval. METHODS: Drug indications with claims of added therapeutical value but a lack of evidence on OS and QoL that were reimbursed between 2010 and 2020 in Sweden were included for review. Searches were conducted in PubMed and ClinicalTrial.gov for randomized controlled trials examining OS and QoL. RESULTS: Of the 22 included drug indications, seven were found to have at least one trial with conclusive evidence of improvements in OS or QoL after a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. The remaining 15 drug indications either lacked subsequent randomized controlled trial data on OS or QoL (n = 6) or showed no statistically significant improvements (n = 9). Only one drug demonstrated evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL for its indication. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable share of reimbursed cancer drug indications continue to lack evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL. With limited healthcare resources and an increasing cancer burden, third-party payers have strong incentives to require additional post-reimbursement data to confirm any improvements in OS and QoL.