Abstract

Several screening methods for colorectal cancer (crc) are available, and some have been shown by randomized trials to be effective. In the present study, we used a well-developed population health simulation model to compare the risks and benefits of a variety of screening scenarios. Tests considered were the fecal occult blood test (fobt), the fecal immunochemical test (fit), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Outcomes considered included years of life gained, crc cases and deaths prevented, and direct health system costs. A natural history model of crc was implemented and calibrated to specified targets within the framework of the Cancer Risk Management Model (crmm) from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The crmm-crc permits users to enter their own parameter values or to use program-specified base values. For each of 23 screening scenarios, we used the crmm-crc to run 10 million replicate simulations. Using base parameter values and some user-specified values in the crmm-crc, and comparing our screening scenarios with no screening, all screening scenarios were found to reduce the incidence of and mortality from crc. The fobt was the least effective test; it was not associated with lower net cost. Colonoscopy screening was the most effective test; it had net costs comparable to those for several other strategies considered, but required more than 3 times the colonoscopy resources needed by other approaches. After colonoscopy, strategies based on the fit were predicted to be the most effective. In sensitivity analyses performed for the fobt and fit screening strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness. The fit was more cost-effective at the 50 ng/mL threshold than at the 100 ng/mL threshold. The crmm-crc provides a sophisticated and flexible environment in which to evaluate crc control options. All screening scenarios considered in this study effectively reduced crc mortality, although sensitivity analyses demonstrated some uncertainty in the magnitude of the improvements. Where possible, local data should be used to reduce uncertainty in the parameters.

Highlights

  • Colorectal cancer is the 2nd most common cancer and cancer cause of death in Canada[1] and the 4th most common cancer worldwide[2]

  • Colonoscopy screening was the most effective test; it had net costs comparable to those for several other strategies considered, but required more than 3 times the colonoscopy resources needed by other approaches

  • In sensitivity analyses performed for the fobt and fit screening strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (crc) is the 2nd most common cancer and cancer cause of death in Canada[1] and the 4th most common cancer worldwide[2]. Several alternative methods for crc screening are available, not all of which have been evaluated by randomized clinical trials. All crc screening methods require the use of colonoscopy for diagnosis, but they differ in their potential effectiveness and risks. Among the tests considered for primary screening, colonoscopy uniquely carries a risk of death by its application. Choice of screening method involves weighing the risks and benefits of the feasible options. Several screening methods for colorectal cancer (crc) are available, and some have been shown by randomized trials to be effective. We used a well-developed population health simulation model to compare the risks and benefits of a variety of screening scenarios. Outcomes considered included years of life gained, crc cases and deaths prevented, and direct health system costs

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.