Search

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation. Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMS min) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses. CMS min reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%–79% and 73%–81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMS min cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMS min would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120–$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation. CMS min could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only. [Display omitted] Blood tests to screen for colorectal cancer could be effective in people who decline stool tests or colonoscopy, but they should not substitute for established methods unless they achieve high detection rates for colorectal cancer and its precursors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overweight and obese persons have not only elevated rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but also higher competing mortality and healthcare spending. We examined the cost-effectiveness of intensified CRC screening in overweight and obese persons. We adapted our validated decision analytic model of CRC screening to compare screening starting at 45 or 40 years of age instead of at 50 years of age, or shortening screening intervals, in women and men with body mass index (BMI) ranging from normal to grade III obesity. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual fecal immunochemical test. Without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for persons with overweight or obesity I–III, reflecting the counterbalancing of higher CRC risk by lower life expectancy as BMI rises. For all BMI and sex groups, Colo10 starting at 45 years of age or FIT starting at 40 years of age were cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Colo10 starting at 40 years of age was cost-effective only for men with obesity II–III, at $93,300 and $80,400 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. Shifting Colo10 to earlier starting ages was always preferred over Colo5 starting at later ages. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis, including varying all-cause mortality, complication, and BMI-specific CRC risks. CRC screening starting at 45 years of age with colonoscopy, or at 40 years of age with FIT, appears cost-effective for women and men across the range of BMI. In men with obesity II–III, who have the highest CRC but also all-cause mortality risks, colonoscopy starting at 40 years of age appears cost-effective. It remains to be decided whether BMI should be used as a single predictor or incorporated into a multivariable tool to tailor CRC screening. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persistent serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation in nucleotide/nucleoside analogue (NA)-treated patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has been associated with unfavorable long-term outcomes.1 It has been consistently shown that a higher proportion of patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) achieve normal ALT in comparison with recipients of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,2–5 the mechanism for which remains unknown.2 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All major U.S. guidelines now endorse average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at 45–49 years of age. Concerns exist that endoscopic capacity may be strained, that low-risk persons may self-select for screening, and that calculations of the adenoma detection rate may be diluted. We analyzed age-specific screening colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates before vs after the endorsement of CRC screening at 45–49 years of age. We compared colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates in our healthcare system during period 1 (October 2017 to December 2018), before the first change in guidelines, vs period 2 (January 2019 to August 2021), the era of new guidelines. The proportion of first-time screening colonoscopies performed in 45- to 49-year-olds increased from 3.5% to 11.6% (relative risk, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.45–4.61). The period 2 detection rates for adenoma, advanced adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, advanced sessile serrated lesion, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy were very similar for 45- to 49-year-olds (34.3%, 6.3%, 8.6%, 2.9%, 0.58, and 0.69, respectively) and 50- to 54-year-olds (38.2%, 5.8%, 9.4%, 3.0%, 0.63, and 0.76, respectively) at first-time screening, and for 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening (33.4%, 6.1%, 7.2%, 2.3%, 0.61, and 0.70, respectively). All detection rates, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy increased from period 1 to period 2 (eg, overall adenoma detection rate 35.1% vs 42.6%; P <.0001), without any decreases among 45- to 49-year-olds. In our healthcare system, a lower CRC screening initiation age has modestly affected colonoscopy volume by age without compromising screening yield. Lesion detection rates, including for advanced adenomas, in average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds approximate those in 50- to 54-year-olds at first-time screening and 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening. National monitoring is needed to assess fully the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy changes in the United States have lengthened overall waiting times for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated temporal trends in utilization of locoregional therapy (LRT) and associated waitlist outcomes among liver transplant (LT) candidates in the United States. Data for primary adult LT candidates listed from 2003 to 2018 who received HCC exception were extracted from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Explant histology was examined, and multivariable competing risk analysis was used to evaluate the association between LRT type and waitlist dropout. There were 31,609 eligible patients with at least 1 approved HCC exception, and 34,610 treatments among 24,145 LT candidates. The proportion with at least 1 LRT recorded increased from 42.3% in 2003 to 92.4% in 2018. Chemoembolization remains the most frequent type, followed by thermal ablation, with a notable increase in radioembolization from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2018. An increased incidence of LRT was observed among patients with tumor burden beyond Milan criteria, higher α-fetoprotein level, and more compensated liver disease. Receipt of any type of LRT was associated with a lower risk of waitlist dropout; there was no significant difference by number of LRTs. In inverse probability of treatment weighting–adjusted analysis, radioembolization or ablation as the first LRT was associated with a reduced risk of waitlist dropout compared with chemoembolization. In a large nationwide cohort of LT candidates with HCC, LRT, and in particular radioembolization, increasingly was used to bridge to LT. Patients with greater tumor burden and those with more compensated liver disease received more treatments while awaiting LT. Bridging LRT was associated with a lower risk of waitlist dropout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been established as a reliable indicator of short-term survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. The current version (MELDNa), consisting of the international normalized ratio and serum bilirubin, creatinine, and sodium, has been used to determine organ allocation priorities for liver transplantation in the United States. The objective was to optimize MELD further by taking into account additional variables and updating coefficients with contemporary data. All candidates registered on the liver transplant wait list in the US national registry from January 2016 through December 2018 were included. Uni- and multivariable Cox models were developed to predict survival up to 90 days after wait list registration. Model fit was tested using the concordance statistic (C-statistic) and reclassification, and the Liver Simulated Allocation Model was used to estimate the impact of replacing MELDNa with the new model. The final multivariable model was characterized by (1) additional variables of female sex and serum albumin, (2) interactions between bilirubin and sodium and between albumin and creatinine, and (3) an upper bound for creatinine at 3.0 mg/dL. The final model (MELD 3.0) had better discrimination than MELDNa (C-statistic, 0.869 vs 0.862; P <.01). Importantly, MELD 3.0 correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women. In the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis, MELD 3.0 resulted in fewer wait list deaths compared to MELDNa (7788 vs 7850; P =.02). MELD 3.0 affords more accurate mortality prediction in general than MELDNa and addresses determinants of wait list outcomes, including the sex disparity. An updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) affords improved prediction of mortality risk for patients with cirrhosis and corrects the sex disparity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]