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.

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.

Black-White disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes: a simulation study of screening benefit.

The US Black population has higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates and worse CRC survival than the US White population, as well as historically lower rates of CRC screening. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results incidence rate data in people diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 45 years, before routine CRC screening is recommended, were analyzed to estimate temporal changes in CRC risk in Black and White populations. There was a rapid rise in rectal and distal colon cancer incidence in the White population but not the Black population, and little change in proximal colon cancer incidence for both groups. In 2014-2018, CRC incidence per 100 000 was 17.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3 to 19.9) among Black individuals aged 40-44 years and 16.6 (95% CI = 15.6 to 17.6) among White individuals aged 40-44 years; 42.3% of CRCs diagnosed in Black patients were proximal colon cancer, and 41.1% of CRCs diagnosed in White patients were rectal cancer. Analyses used a race-specific microsimulation model to project screening benefits, based on life-years gained and lifetime reduction in CRC incidence, assuming these Black-White differences in CRC risk and location. The projected benefits of screening (via either colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing) were greater in the Black population, suggesting that observed Black-White differences in CRC incidence are not driven by differences in risk. Projected screening benefits were sensitive to survival assumptions made for Black populations. Building racial disparities in survival into the model reduced projected screening benefits, which can bias policy decisions.

Identifying Optimal Methods for Addressing Confounding Bias When Estimating the Effects of State-level Policies.

BACKGROUND: Policy evaluation studies that assess how state-level policies affect health-related outcomes are foundational to health and social policy research. The relative ability of newer analytic methods to address confounding, a key source of bias in observational studies, has not been closely examined. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study to examine how differing magnitudes of confounding affected the performance of 4 methods used for policy evaluations: (1) the two-way fixed effects difference-in-differences model; (2) a 1-period lagged autoregressive model; (3) augmented synthetic control method; and (4) the doubly robust difference-in-differences approach with multiple time periods from Callaway-Sant'Anna. We simulated our data to have staggered policy adoption and multiple confounding scenarios (i.e., varying the magnitude and nature of confounding relationships). RESULTS: Bias increased for each method: (1) as confounding magnitude increases; (2) when confounding is generated with respect to prior outcome trends (rather than levels), and (3) when confounding associations are nonlinear (rather than linear). The autoregressive model and augmented synthetic control method had notably lower root mean squared error than the two-way fixed effects and Callaway-Sant'Anna approaches for all scenarios; the exception is nonlinear confounding by prior trends, where Callaway-Sant'Anna excels. Coverage rates were unreasonably high for the augmented synthetic control method (e.g., 100%), reflecting large model-based standard errors and wide confidence intervals in practice. CONCLUSIONS: In our simulation study, no single method consistently outperformed the others, but a researcher's toolkit should include all methodologic options. Our simulations and associated R package can help researchers choose the most appropriate approach for their data.

Projected long-term effects of colorectal cancer screening disruptions following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes due to differential disruptions to CRC screening. This comparative microsimulation analysis uses two CISNET CRC models to simulate the impact of ongoing screening disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We evaluate three channels through which screening was disrupted: delays in screening, regimen switching, and screening discontinuation. The impact of these disruptions on long-term CRC outcomes was measured by the number of life-years lost due to CRC screening disruptions compared to a scenario without any disruptions. While short-term delays in screening of 3-18 months are predicted to result in minor life-years loss, discontinuing screening could result in much more significant reductions in the expected benefits of screening. These results demonstrate that unequal recovery of screening following the pandemic can widen disparities in CRC outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.

Optimal non-pharmaceutical pandemic response strategies depend critically on time horizons and costs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has called for swift action from local governments, which have instated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to curb the spread of the disease. The swift implementation of social distancing policies has raised questions about the costs and benefits of strategies that either aim to keep cases as low as possible (suppression) or aim to reach herd immunity quickly (mitigation) to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. While curbing COVID-19 required blunt instruments, it is unclear whether a less-transmissible and less-deadly emerging pathogen would justify the same response. This paper illuminates this question using a parsimonious transmission model by formulating the social distancing lives vs. livelihoods dilemma as a boundary value problem using calculus of variations. In this setup, society balances the costs and benefits of social distancing contingent on the costs of reducing transmission relative to the burden imposed by the disease. We consider both single-objective and multi-objective formulations of the problem. To the best of our knowledge, our approach is distinct in the sense that strategies emerge from the problem structure rather than being imposed a priori. We find that the relative time-horizon of the pandemic (i.e., the time it takes to develop effective vaccines and treatments) and the relative cost of social distancing influence the choice of the optimal policy. Unsurprisingly, we find that the appropriate policy response depends on these two factors. We discuss the conditions under which each policy archetype (suppression vs. mitigation) appears to be the most appropriate.

Too Good to Be True? Evaluation of Colonoscopy Sensitivity Assumptions Used in Policy Models.

BACKGROUND: Models can help guide colorectal cancer screening policy. Although models are carefully calibrated and validated, there is less scrutiny of assumptions about test performance. METHODS: We examined the validity of the CRC-SPIN model and colonoscopy sensitivity assumptions. Standard sensitivity assumptions, consistent with published decision analyses, assume sensitivity equal to 0.75 for diminutive adenomas (<6 mm), 0.85 for small adenomas (6-10 mm), 0.95 for large adenomas (≥10 mm), and 0.95 for preclinical cancer. We also selected adenoma sensitivity that resulted in more accurate predictions. Targets were drawn from the Wheat Bran Fiber study. We examined how well the model predicted outcomes measured over a three-year follow-up period, including the number of adenomas detected, the size of the largest adenoma detected, and incident colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Using standard sensitivity assumptions, the model predicted adenoma prevalence that was too low (42.5% versus 48.9% observed, with 95% confidence interval 45.3%-50.7%) and detection of too few large adenomas (5.1% versus 14.% observed, with 95% confidence interval 11.8%-17.4%). Predictions were close to targets when we set sensitivities to 0.20 for diminutive adenomas, 0.60 for small adenomas, 0.80 for 10- to 20-mm adenomas, and 0.98 for adenomas 20 mm and larger. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy may be less accurate than currently assumed, especially for diminutive adenomas. Alternatively, the CRC-SPIN model may not accurately simulate onset and progression of adenomas in higher-risk populations. IMPACT: Misspecification of either colonoscopy sensitivity or disease progression in high-risk populations may affect the predicted effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. When possible, decision analyses used to inform policy should address these uncertainties.See related commentary by Etzioni and Lange, p. 702.

Reopening California: Seeking robust, non-dominated COVID-19 exit strategies.

The COVID-19 pandemic required significant public health interventions from local governments. Although nonpharmaceutical interventions often were implemented as decision rules, few studies evaluated the robustness of those reopening plans under a wide range of uncertainties. This paper uses the Robust Decision Making approach to stress-test 78 alternative reopening strategies, using California as an example. This study uniquely considers a wide range of uncertainties and demonstrates that seemingly sensible reopening plans can lead to both unnecessary COVID-19 deaths and days of interventions. We find that plans using fixed COVID-19 case thresholds might be less effective than strategies with time-varying reopening thresholds. While we use California as an example, our results are particularly relevant for jurisdictions where vaccination roll-out has been slower. The approach used in this paper could also prove useful for other public health policy problems in which policymakers need to make robust decisions in the face of deep uncertainty.