Population-level impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation for colorectal cancer screening: a microsimulation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, a BMJ Rapid Recommendation advised against colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults with a predicted 15-year CRC risk below 3%. Using Switzerland as a case study, we estimated the population-level impact of this recommendation. DESIGN: We predicted the CRC risk of all respondents to the population-based Swiss Health Survey. We derived the distribution of risk-based screening start age, assuming predicted risk was calculated every 5 years between ages 25 and 70 and screening started when this risk exceeded 3%. Next, the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model evaluated biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening with this risk-based start age. As a comparison, we simulated screening initiation based on age and sex. RESULTS: Starting screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3% meant 82% of women and 90% of men would not start screening before age 65 and 60, respectively. This would require 43%-57% fewer tests, result in 8%-16% fewer CRC deaths prevented and yield 19%-33% fewer lifeyears gained compared with screening from age 50. Screening women from age 65 and men from age 60 had a similar impact as screening only when predicted risk exceeded 3%. CONCLUSION: With the recommended risk prediction tool, the population impact of the BMJ Rapid Recommendation would be similar to screening initiation based on age and sex only. It would delay screening initiation by 10-15 years. Although halving the screening burdens, screening benefits would be reduced substantially compared with screening initiation at age 50. This suggests that the 3% risk threshold to start CRC screening might be too high.

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.

Development and validation of colorectal cancer risk prediction tools: A comparison of models.

BACKGROUND: Identification of individuals at elevated risk can improve cancer screening programmes by permitting risk-adjusted screening intensities. Previous work introduced a prognostic model using sex, age and two preceding faecal haemoglobin concentrations to predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the next screening round. Using data of 3 screening rounds, this model attained an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 for predicting advanced neoplasia (AN). We validated this existing logistic regression (LR) model and attempted to improve it by applying a more flexible machine-learning approach. METHODS: We trained an existing LR and a newly developed random forest (RF) model using updated data from 219,257 third-round participants of the Dutch CRC screening programme until 2018. For both models, we performed two separate out-of-sample validations using 1,137,599 third-round participants after 2018 and 192,793 fourth-round participants from 2020 onwards. We evaluated the AUC and relative risks of the predicted high-risk groups for the outcomes AN and CRC. RESULTS: For third-round participants after 2018, the AUC for predicting AN was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76-0.77) using LR and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.77-0.77) using RF. For fourth-round participants, the AUCs were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72-0.74) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72-0.74) for the LR and RF models, respectively. For both models, the 5% with the highest predicted risk had a 7-fold risk of AN compared to average, whereas the lowest 80% had a risk below the population average for third-round participants. CONCLUSION: The LR is a valid risk prediction method in stool-based screening programmes. Although predictive performance declined marginally, the LR model still effectively predicted risk in subsequent screening rounds. An RF did not improve CRC risk prediction compared to an LR, probably due to the limited number of available explanatory variables. The LR remains the preferred prediction tool because of its interpretability.

Potential global loss of life expected due to COVID-19 disruptions to organised colorectal cancer screening.

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases cancer burden through removal of precancerous lesions and early detection of cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted organised CRC screening programs worldwide, with some programs completely suspending screening and others experiencing significant decreases in participation and diagnostic follow-up. This study estimated the global impact of screening disruptions on CRC outcomes, and potential effects of catch-up screening. Methods: Organised screening programs were identified in 29 countries, and data on participation rates and COVID-related changes to screening in 2020 were extracted where available. Four independent microsimulation models (ASCCA, MISCAN-Colon, OncoSim, and Policy1-Bowel) were used to estimate the long-term impact on CRC cases and deaths, based on decreases to screening participation in 2020. For countries where 2020 participation data were not available, changes to screening were approximated based on excess mortality rates. Catch-up strategies involving additional screening in 2021 were also simulated. Findings: In countries for which direct data were available, organised CRC screening volumes at a country level decreased by an estimated 1.3-40.5% in 2020. Globally, it is estimated that COVID-related screening decreases led to a deficit of 7.4 million fewer faecal screens performed in 2020. In the absence of any organised catch-up screening, this would lead to an estimated 13,000 additional CRC cases and 7,900 deaths globally from 2020 to 2050; 79% of the additional cases and 85% of additional deaths could have been prevented with catch-up screening, respectively. Interpretation: COVID-19-related disruptions to screening will cause excess CRC cases and deaths, but appropriately implemented catch-up screening could have reduced the burden by over 80%. Careful management of any disruption is key to improving the resilience of colorectal cancer screening programs. Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Cancer Council New South Wales, Health Canada, and Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment.

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.

Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were based on hypothetical performance of CRC risk prediction and did not consider the association with competing causes of death. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening using real-world data for CRC risk and competing causes of death. METHODS: Risk predictions for CRC and competing causes of death from a large community-based cohort were used to stratify individuals into risk groups. A microsimulation model was used to optimize colonoscopy screening for each risk group by varying the start age (40-60 years), end age (70-85 years), and screening interval (5-15 years). The outcomes included personalized screening ages and intervals and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform colonoscopy screening (ages 45-75, every 10 years). Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Risk-stratified screening resulted in substantially different screening recommendations, ranging from a one-time colonoscopy at age 60 for low-risk individuals to a colonoscopy every 5 years from ages 40 to 85 for high-risk individuals. Nevertheless, on a population level, risk-stratified screening would increase net quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYG) by only 0.7% at equal costs to uniform screening or reduce average costs by 1.2% for equal QALYG. The benefit of risk-stratified screening improved when it was assumed to increase participation or costs less per genetic test. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized screening for CRC, accounting for competing causes of death risk, could result in highly tailored individual screening programs. However, average improvements across the population in QALYG and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform screening are small.

Impact and Recovery from COVID-19-Related Disruptions in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Care in the US: A Scenario Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many colorectal cancer-related procedures were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we predict the impact of resulting delays in screening (colonoscopy, FIT, and sigmoidoscopy) and diagnosis on colorectal cancer-related outcomes, and compare different recovery scenarios. METHODS: Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated the US population and evaluated different impact and recovery scenarios. Scenarios were defined by the duration and severity of the disruption (percentage of eligible adults affected), the length of delays, and the duration of the recovery. During recovery (6, 12 or 24 months), capacity was increased to catch up missed procedures. Primary outcomes were excess colorectal cancer cases and -related deaths, and additional colonoscopies required during recovery. RESULTS: With a 24-month recovery, the model predicted that the US population would develop 7,210 (0.18%) excess colorectal cancer cases during 2020-2040, and 6,950 (0.65%) excess colorectal cancer-related deaths, and require 108,500 (8.6%) additional colonoscopies per recovery month, compared with a no-disruption scenario. Shorter recovery periods of 6 and 12 months, respectively, decreased excess colorectal cancer-related deaths to 4,190 (0.39%) and 4,580 (0.43%), at the expense of 260,200-590,100 (20.7%-47.0%) additional colonoscopies per month. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic will likely cause more than 4,000 excess colorectal cancer-related deaths in the US, which could increase to more than 7,000 if recovery periods are longer. IMPACT: Our results highlight that catching-up colorectal cancer-related services within 12 months provides a good balance between required resources and mitigation of the impact of the disruption on colorectal cancer-related deaths.

Prioritisation of colonoscopy services in colorectal cancer screening programmes to minimise impact of COVID-19 pandemic on predicted cancer burden: A comparative modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been disrupted in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Performing catch-up of missed screens while maintaining regular screening services requires additional colonoscopy capacity that may not be available. This study aimed to compare strategies that clear the screening backlog using limited colonoscopy resources. METHODS: A range of strategies were simulated using four country-specific CRC natural-history models: Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) and MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis for CRC (MISCAN-Colon) (both in the Netherlands), Policy1-Bowel (Australia) and OncoSim (Canada). Strategies assumed a 3-month screening disruption with varying recovery period lengths (6, 12, and 24 months) and varying FIT thresholds for diagnostic colonoscopy. Increasing the FIT threshold reduces the number of referrals to diagnostic colonoscopy. Outcomes for each strategy were colonoscopy demand and excess CRC-related deaths due to the disruption. RESULTS: Performing catch-up using the regular FIT threshold in 6, 12 and 24 months could prevent most excess CRC-related deaths, but required 50%, 25% and 12.5% additional colonoscopy demand, respectively. Without exceeding usual colonoscopy demand, up to 60% of excess CRC-related deaths can be prevented by increasing the FIT threshold for 12 or 24 months. Large increases in FIT threshold could lead to additional deaths rather than preventing them. CONCLUSIONS: Clearing the screening backlog in 24 months could avert most excess CRC-related deaths due to a 3-month disruption but would require a small increase in colonoscopy demand. Increasing the FIT threshold slightly over 24 months could ease the pressure on colonoscopy resources.

Unequal Recovery in Colorectal Cancer Screening Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Microsimulation Analysis.

The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in access to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening 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 colorectal cancer (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 colorectal cancer outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.