Search

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 cos

Background: As the impact of unmanaged bias (i.e. systematic source of inaccuracy) in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) analytical performance on long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes is unknown, we assessed the impact bias in FIT performance in an ongoing FIT-based CRC screening program. Methods: This study consisted of two parts: cross-sectional observational data analysis to estimate change in short-term outcomes and microsimulation modelling to estimate change in long-term outcomes assuming different levels of bias by assuming 15 % lower up to 15 % higher Hemoglobin detected in the stool compared to observed. Two scenarios were considered: bias occurring 1) one-time only, due to the occasional bias associated with the FIT kits used in 2020 and 2) consistently due to a constant bias associated with the FIT kits used from 2020 onwards. Results: With a hypothetical bias of −15 % to +15 %, we observed a positivity rate ranging from 6.7 % to 7.8 %, and a detection rate for CRC between 0.65 % and 0.68 %. Single biases in FIT performance resulted in less than 0.1 % change in long-term CRC screening outcomes, while consistent biases resulted in a much larger change (up to 1.4 % in CRC cases and CRC-related deaths and up to 2.07 % in total costs). Detecting lower Hemoglobin concentrations resulted in a relatively larger change on long-term CRC outcomes in comparison to positive bias. Conclusions: Because of the substantial impact of consistent FIT bias, it is important to set evidence-based acceptance criteria of bias on long-term CRC screening outcomes and in particular, the introduction of an asymmetrical or upward shifted tolerance interval for FIT bias.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals’ views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants’ information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

Objective To assess the impact of delayed invitation on screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers (CRC) within a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based CRC screening programme. Design All individuals that participated in 2017 and 2018 with a negative FIT and were eligible for CRC screening in 2019 and 2020 were included using individual-level data. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between either the different time periods (ie, 'before', 'during' and 'after' the first COVID-19 wave) or the invitation interval on screen-detected and interval CRCs. Results Positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia (AN) was slightly lower during (OR=0.91) and after (OR=0.95) the first COVID-19 wave, but no significant difference was observed for the different invitation intervals. Out of all individuals that previously tested negative, 84 (0.004%) had an interval CRC beyond the 24 months since their last invitation. The time period of invitation as well as the extended invitation interval was not associated with detection rates for AN and interval CRC rate. Conclusion The impact of the first COVID-19 wave on screening yield was modest. A very small proportion of the FIT negatives had an interval CRC possibly due to an extended interval, which potentially could have been prevented if they had received the invitation earlier. Nonetheless, no increase in interval CRC rate was observed, indicating that an extended invitation interval up to 30 months had no negative impact on the performance of the CRC screening programme and a modest extension of the invitation interval seems an appropriate intervention.

Background: High participation rates are essential for a screening programme to be beneficial. To reach non-participants in a targeted manner, insight in characteristics of non-participants is needed. We investigated demographic differences between participants and non-participants in the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. Methods: In this population-based cohort study, we included all invitees for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019. Participation status, birth year, and sex were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system and linked to demographic characteristics from Statistics Netherlands, including migration background, level of education, socioeconomic category, household composition, and household income. A multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between demographic factors and participation. Results: A total of 4,383,861 individuals were invited for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019, of which 3,170,349 (72.3%) participated. Individuals were less likely to participate when they were single and/or living with others (single with other residents versus couple: odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31–0.38), had a migration background (e.g. Moroccan migrant versus Dutch background: OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.42–0.44), or had a low income (lowest versus highest quintile: OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.44–0.45). Although to a lesser extent, non-participation was also significantly associated with being male, being younger, receiving social welfare benefits and having a low level of education. Conclusion: We found that individuals who were single and/or living with others, immigrants from Morocco or individuals with low income were the least likely to participate in the Dutch CRC screening programme. Targeted interventions are needed to minimise inequities in CRC screening.

Background: In 2014, the national population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was implemented in the Netherlands. Biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for hemoglobin (Hb) is used at a cut-off of 47 µg Hb per gram feces. The CRC screening program successfully started, with high participation rates and yield of screening. Now that the program has reached a steady state, there is potential to further optimize the program. Previous studies showed that prior fecal Hb (f-Hb) concentrations just below the FIT cut-off are associated with a higher risk for detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) at subsequent screening rounds. We aim to achieve a better balance between the harms and benefits of CRC screening by offering participants tailored invitation intervals based on prior f-Hb concentrations after negative FIT. Methods: This mixed-methods study will be performed within the Dutch national CRC screening program and will consist of: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT), (2) focus group studies, and (3) decision modelling. The primary outcome is the yield of AN per screened individual in personalized screening vs. uniform screening. Secondary outcomes are perspectives on, acceptability of and adherence to personalized screening, as well as long-term outcomes of personalized vs. uniform screening. The RCT will include 20,000 participants of the Dutch CRC screening program; 10,000 in the intervention and 10,000 in the control arm. The intervention arm will receive a personalized screening interval based on the prior f-Hb concentration (1, 2 or 3 years). The control arm will receive a screening interval according to current practice (2 years). The focus group studies are designed to understand individuals’ perspectives on and acceptability of personalized CRC screening. Results of the RCT will be incorporated into the MISCAN-Colon model to determine long-term benefits, harms, and costs of personalized vs. uniform CRC screening. Discussion: The aim of t

In 2014 werd gestart met het bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker, met als doel het verminderen van de sterfte aan darmkanker. Het bevolkingsonderzoek is erop gericht om, door middel van een ontlastingstest, voorlopers van darmkanker (advanced adenomen), of darmkankers in een vroeg stadium op te sporen. Er is dan een betere behandeling mogelijk dan wanneer darmkanker wordt ontdekt door klachten. In dit tweede evaluatierapport worden de belangrijkste uitkomsten van het Nederlandse bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker in de periode 2018-2021 beschreven.

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program. Design We simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020–2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term. Results Increasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost). Conclusion This modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.

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.

Background: The current community-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Shanghai, launched in 2013, invited individuals aged 50–74 years to triennial screening with a qualitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and questionnaire-based risk assessment (RA). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the existing Shanghai screening program and compare it to using a validated two-sample quantitative FIT. Methods: We simulated four strategies (no screening, Shanghai FIT, Shanghai FIT + RA and validated FIT) for the Shanghai screening program and evaluated CRC incidence, CRC mortality, the number of life years gained (LYG), the number of FITs, and colonoscopies required for each. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost- effectiveness of each strategy. Results: All screening modalities reduced CRC incidence and CRC mortality, gained extra number of LYG compared to no screening. Screening using the Shanghai FIT and validated FIT reduced CRC incidence from 45 cases to 43 per 1,000 simulated individuals (4.4%). Incidence was reduced to 42 cases (6.7%) using the Shanghai FIT + RA. All screening strategies reduced CRC mortality by 10.0% (from 10 to 9 deaths) and resulted in 6 to 7 LYG. The validated FIT was the most cost-effective among the evaluated strategies (ICER ¥26,461 per LYG). Conclusions: Our findings show that the current Shanghai screening program is (cost-) effective compared to no screening, but changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Shanghai, China, a CRC screening programme was commenced in 2013 inviting those aged 50-74 years to triennial screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk assessment. However, it is unknown whether this is the optimal screening strategy for this population. We aimed to determine the optimal CRC screening programme for Shanghai in terms of benefits, burden, harms and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon), we estimated the costs and effects of the current screening programme compared with a situation without screening. Subsequently, we estimated the benefits (life years gained (LYG)), burden (number of screening events, colonoscopies and false-positive tests), harms (number of colonoscopy complications) and costs (Renminb (¥)) of screening for 324 alternative screening strategies. We compared several different age ranges, screening modalities, intervals and FIT cut-off levels. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis determined the optimal strategy assuming a willingness-to-pay of ¥193 931 per LYG. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, the current screening programme reduced CRC incidence by 40% (19 cases per 1000 screened individuals) and CRC mortality by 67% (7 deaths). This strategy gained 32 additional life years, increased colonoscopy demand to 1434 per 1000 individuals and cost an additional ¥199 652. The optimal screening strategy was annual testing using a validated one-sample FIT, with a cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin per gram from ages 45 to 80 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ¥62 107). This strategy increased LY by 0.18% and costs by 27%. Several alternative cost-effective strategies using a validated FIT offered comparable benefits to the current programme but lower burden and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current screening programme in Shanghai is effective at reducing CRC incidence and mortality, the program

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been demonstrated to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, besides such benefits, CRC screening is also associated with potential harmful effects. In an ideal world, screening would only be directed to the small proportion of the population that might potentially benefit. Risk-based screening can be seen as a first step towards this ideal world, by redistributing screening resources from low-risk to high-risk individuals. In theory, this should result in scarce resources being used in individuals who benefit most, while intensity of screening is reduced in individuals who benefit less, hence improving the benefit-harm ratio among all invitees. Available strategies that have been proposed for risk-based CRC screening include using information on age, sex, prior screening history, lifestyle and/or genetic information. Implementation of risk-based screening requires careful consideration of reliable risk prediction models, participation with screening and informed decision-making. While it is important to recognise the limitations of current approaches, available evidence suggests that it might be feasible to start planning the introduction of tailored strategies within screening programmes. Implementing risk-based screening based on age, sex and prior screening history alone would already represent a substantial improvement over current uniform screening approaches. We propose that it is time that screening programmes start there and continue striving towards more comprehensive approaches embedding primary prevention as an effective approach to lower risk for everyone.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Methods: The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. Results: Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusions: This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.