Search

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy-based surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial burden for patients and health care. Stool tests may help to reduce surveillance colonoscopies by limiting colonoscopies to individuals at increased risk of advanced neoplasia., Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years with surveillance indication. Before bowel preparation, participants collected samples for a multitarget stool DNA test and 2 fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications. For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and is associated with a relatively low CRC risk, long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test's positivity threshold to obtain strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance., Results: There were 3453 individuals with results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; 2226 had previous polypectomy, 1003 had previous CRC, and 224 had a familial risk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy). Stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance reduced the number of colonoscopies by 15%-41% and required 5.6-9.5 stool tests over a person's lifetime. Multitarget stool DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs., Conclusions: This study found that stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies can be safe and cost-effective, with potential to reduce the number of colonoscopies by up to 41%., Clinicaltrials: gov, Number: NCT02715141., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, accurate information on the risk of developing CRC from premalignant lesions is essential. However, directly observing this risk is challenging since precursor lesions, i.e., advanced adenomas (AAs), are removed upon detection. Statistical methods for multistate models can estimate risks, but estimation is challenging due to low CRC incidence. We propose an outcome-dependent sampling (ODS) design for this problem in which we oversample CRCs. More specifically, we propose a three-state model for jointly estimating the time distributions from baseline colonoscopy to AA and from AA onset to CRC accounting for the ODS design using a weighted likelihood approach. We applied the methodology to a sample from a Norwegian adenoma cohort (1993-2007), comprising 1, 495 individuals (median follow-up 6.8 years [IQR: 1.1 - 12.8 years]) of whom 648 did and 847 did not develop CRC. We observed a 5-year AA risk of 13% and 34% for individuals having non-advanced adenoma (NAA) and AA removed at baseline colonoscopy, respectively. Upon AA development, the subsequent risk to develop CRC in 5 years was 17% and age-dependent. These estimates provide a basis for optimizing surveillance intensity and determining the optimal trade-off between CRC prevention, costs, and use of colonoscopy resources., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: The authors assessed whether familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) surveillance in individuals without hereditary CRC can be optimized METHODS: The Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer-FCRC model simulates CRC development in individuals with a family history of CRC at 2-fold and 4-fold increased CRC risk compared with the general population. The authors simulated a strategy without surveillance, the current Dutch guideline (5-yearly colonoscopy between ages 45 and 75 years), and the following 3 sets of alternative strategies: colonoscopy surveillance, surveillance combining colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and FIT-based surveillance. Each set included a range of strategies differing in age range and test interval. The optimal strategy was defined as the strategy with highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) satisfying all of the following criteria: in the (near-)efficiency area of the cost-effectiveness frontier and compared with current surveillance; noninferior effectiveness; no substantial increase in colonoscopy burden; and not more expensive., Results: The optimal strategy was 10-yearly colonoscopy with 2-yearly FIT between colonoscopies from ages 40 to 80 years for both 2-fold and 4-fold increased CRC risk. At 2-fold risk, this strategy prevented 0.8 more CRC deaths, gained 15.8 more QALYs at 731 fewer colonoscopies, and saved €98,000 over the lifetime of 1000 individuals compared with current surveillance. At 4-fold risk, figures were 2.1 more CRC deaths prevented, 37.0 more QALYs gained at 567 fewer colonoscopies, and €127,000 lower costs. Current surveillance was not (near-)efficient., Conclusions: FIT could play an important role in FCRC surveillance. Surveillance with 10-yearly colonoscopy and 2-yearly FIT between colonoscopies from ages 40 to 80 years increased QALYs and reduced colonoscopy burden and costs compared with current FCRC surveillance., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after curative surgery for stage II colon cancer (CC) is suboptimal, causing overtreatment of high-risk patients and undertreatment of low-risk patients. Postoperative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could improve patient selection for ACT., Objectives: We conducted an early model-based evaluation of the (cost-)effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for ACT in stage II CC in the Netherlands to assess the conditions for cost-effective implementation., Methods: A validated Markov model, simulating 1000 stage II CC patients from diagnosis to death, was supplemented with ctDNA data. Five ACT selection strategies were evaluated: the current guideline (pT4, pMMR), ctDNA-only, and three strategies that combined ctDNA status with pT4 and pMMR status in different ways. For each strategy, the costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), recurrences, and CC deaths were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of the costs of ctDNA testing, strategy adherence, ctDNA as a predictive biomarker, and ctDNA test performance., Results: Model predictions showed that compared to current guidelines, the ctDNA-only strategy was less effective (+2.2% recurrences, -0.016 QALYs), while the combination strategies were more effective (-3.6% recurrences, +0.038 QALYs). The combination strategies were not cost-effective, since the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €67,413 per QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the combination strategies would be cost-effective if the ctDNA test costs were lower than €1500, or if ctDNA status was predictive of treatment response, or if the ctDNA test performance improved substantially., Conclusion: Adding ctDNA to current high-risk clinicopathological features (pT4 and pMMR) can improve patient selection for ACT and can also potentially be cost-effective. Future studies should investigate the predictive value of post-surgery ctDNA status to accurately evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA testing for ACT decisions in stage II CC., Competing Interests: S.J.S. received an institutional research grant from Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx). G.R.V. reported grants and/or nonfinancial support from BMS, Merck, Servier, Personal Genome Diagnostics, Bayer, Sirtex, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Delfi Diagnostics, all outside the submitted work, and all financial supports transferred to the institute. J.P. is a founder of Delfi Diagnostics and owns Delfi Diagnostics stock. V.E.V. is a founder of Delfi Diagnostics, serves on the Board of Directors and as an officer for this organization, and owns Delfi Diagnostics stock, which is subject to certain restrictions under university policy. In addition, Johns Hopkins University owns equity in Delfi Diagnostics. V.E.V. divested his equity in Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx) to LabCorp in February 2022. V.E.V. is an inventor on patent applications submitted by Johns Hopkins University related to cancer genomic analyses and cell-free DNA for cancer detection that have been licensed to one or more entities, including Delfi Diagnostics, LabCorp, Qiagen, Sysmex, Agios, Genzyme, Esoterix, Ventana, and ManaT Bio. Under the terms of these license agreements, the University and inventors are entitled to fees and royalty distributions. V.E.V. is an advisor to Viron Therapeutics and Epitope. These arrangements have been reviewed and approved by Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. D.v.d.B. has provided lectures, expert testimony, and advisory board presence, for Roche Diagnostics, all outside the submitted work and all financial supports transferred to the institute. M.K. reports having an advisory role for Eisai, Nordic Farma, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Servier (vergoedingen naar instituut). Institutional scientific grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirtex, and Servier. PI from the international cohort study PROMETCO with Servier as a sponsor. Non-financial interests: chair of the ESMO RWD-DH working group, co-chair DCCG, PI PLCRC (national observational cohort study), involved in several clinical trials as PI or co-investigator in CRC. G.A.M. is co-founder and board member (CSO) of CRCbioscreen BV, he has a research collaboration with CZ Health Insurances (cash matching to ZonMW grant), he has research collaborations with Exact Sciences, Sysmex, Sentinel Ch. SpA, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), DELFi, and Hartwig Medical Foundation; these companies provide materials, equipment, and/or sample/genomic analyses, and he has several patents pending/issued. J.M.L.R. is an advisory board and/or speaker at Bayer, BMS, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, AMGEN, GSK, received research funding paid to the institution from BMS, Pierre Fabre, GSK, Servier, Cleara, HUB organoids B.V., Xilis, and is a board member of the Foundation Hubrecht Organoid Biobank. R.J.A.F. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), DELFI Diagnostics, and Cergentis BV; grants from MERCK BV; and nonfinancial support from Pacific Biosciences, outside the submitted work. In addition, R.J.A.F. has several patents pending. V.P.R. received in the past 3 years an unrestricted grant from Intuitive BV, outside of the current work. The remaining authors declare no potential competing interests., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Background: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center., Methods: In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022)., Results: Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs., Discussion: In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective., Methods: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient's disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed., Results: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy., Conclusions: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Decision makers frequently face decisions about optimal resource allocation. A model-based economic evaluation can be used to guide decision makers in their choices by systematically evaluating the magnitude of expected health effects and costs of decision options and by making trade-offs explicit. We provide a guide to an iterative approach to the medical decision-making process by following a coherent framework, and outline the overarching iterative steps of model-based decision making. We systematized the framework by performing three steps. First, we compiled the existing guidelines provided by the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force, and the ISPOR Value of Information Task Force. Second, we identified other previous work related to frameworks and guidelines for model-based decision analyses through a literature search in PubMed. Third, we assessed the role of the evidence and iterative process in decision making and formalized key steps in a model-based decision-making framework. We provide guidance on an iterative approach to medical decision making by applying the compiled iterative model-based decision-making framework. The framework formally combines the decision problem conceptualization (Part I), the model conceptualization and development (Part II), and the process of model-based decision analysis (Part III). Following the overarching steps of the framework ensures compliance to the principles of evidence-based medicine and regular updates of the evidence, given that value of information analysis represents an essential component of model-based decision analysis in the framework. Following the provided guide and the steps outlined in the framework can help inform various health care decisions, and therefore it has the potential to improve decision making., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objectives: To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons., Methods: The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle., Results: CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years., Conclusions: Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Links to the individual disclosure forms provided by the authors are available here., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely employed for colorectal cancer screening. However, its sensitivity for advanced precursor lesions remains suboptimal. The multitarget FIT (mtFIT), measuring haemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2, has demonstrated enhanced sensitivity for advanced neoplasia, especially advanced adenomas, at equal specificity to FIT. This study aimed to prospectively validate and investigate the clinical utlitity of mtFIT versus FIT in a setting of population-based colorectal cancer screening., Methods: Individuals aged 55-75 years and who were eligible for the Dutch national FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme were invited to submit both a FIT and mtFIT sample collected from the same bowel movement. Positive FIT (47 μg/g haemoglobin cutoff) or mtFIT (based on decision-tree algorithm) led to a colonoscopy referral. The primary outcome was the relative detection rate of mtFIT versus FIT for all advanced neoplasia. Secondary outcomes were the relative detection rates of colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps individually and the long-term effect of mtFIT-based versus FIT-based programmatic screening on colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and cost, determined with microsimulation modelling. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05314309, and is complete., Findings: Between March 25 and Dec 7, 2022, 35 786 individuals were invited to participate in the study, of whom 15 283 (42·7%) consented, and 13 187 (86·3%) of 15 283 provided both mtFIT and FIT samples with valid results. Of the 13 187 participants, 6637 (50·3%) were male and 6550 (49·7%) were female. mtFIT showed a 9·11% (95% CI 8·62-9·61) positivity rate and 2·27% (95% CI 2·02-2·54) detection rate for advanced neoplasia, compared with a positivity rate of 4·08% (3·75-4·43) and a detection rate of 1·21% (1·03-1·41) for FIT. Detection rates of mtFIT versus FIT were 0·20% (95% CI 0·13-0·29) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·27) for colorectal cancer; 1·64% (1·43-1·87) versus 0·86% (0·72-1·04) for advanced adenoma, and 0·43% (0·33-0·56) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·26) for advanced serrated polyps. Modelling demonstrated that mtFIT-based screening could reduce colorectal cancer incidence by 21% and associated mortality by 18% compared with the current Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme, at feasible costs. Furthermore, at equal positivity rates, mtFIT outperformed FIT in terms of diagnostic yield. At an equally low positivity rate, mtFIT-based screening was predicted to further decrease colorectal cancer incidence by 5% and associated mortality by 4% compared with FIT-based screening., Interpretation: The higher detection rate of mtFIT for advanced adenoma compared with FIT holds the potential to translate into additional and clinically meaningful long-term colorectal cancer incidence and associated mortality reductions in programmatic colorectal cancer screening., Funding: Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and Health~Holland., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GAM is co-founder, stockholder, and board member (Chief Scientific Officer) of CRCbioscreen BV, he has a research collaboration with CZ Health Insurances (cash contribution to ZonMW grant) and has research collaborations with Exact Sciences, Sysmex, Sentinel Ch. SpA, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDX), DELFi Diagnostics, and Hartwig Medical Foundation; these companies provide materials and equipment for genomic analyses. PHAW has received honorarium for consultancy from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. MdW is co-founder, stockholder, and board member (Chief Operations Officer) of CRCbioscreen BV. BC, MdW, VMHC, and GM have several patents pending or issued related to the work herein. MCWS has received research support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Sentinel, and Sysmex. ED has endoscopic equipment on loan from FujiFilm and has received a research grant from FujiFilm. ED has also received honoraria for consultancy from FujiFilm, Olympus, InterVenn, and Ambu, and speakers' fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION, and FujiFilm. ED is also Chair CRC Screening Committee of World Endoscopy Organisation, Chair Dutch Post-polypectomy surveillance guideline committee, and Member of Post-polypectomy surveillance guideline committee of European Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. WdK received consulting fees as member of the Dutch Post-polypectomy surveillance guideline committee of European Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Real-world data are necessitated to counsel patients about the risk for recurrent disease after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. This study provided a population-based overview of the epidemiology of recurrent disease in patients with surgically resected stage II/III colorectal cancer.Patients diagnosed with stage II/III primary colorectal cancer between July and December 2015 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 3,762). Cumulative incidence of recurrent disease was estimated, and multivariable competing risk regression was used to identify risk factors for recurrent disease in patients with primary colon and rectal cancer. Moreover, overall survival (OS) after diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer was estimated.Median clinical follow-up was 58 months (Q1-Q3: 22-62). Five-year cumulative incidence of recurrent disease was 21.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0-23.2] and 30.0% (95% CI: 28.3-33.5) for patients with primary colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Stage III disease and incomplete resection margin in patients with primary colon cancer and extramural vascular invasion in patients with primary rectal cancer were strongly (HR ≥ 2) associated with recurrent disease. Median OS of patients with distant, locoregional, or the synchronous combination of distant and locoregional recurrent disease was 29, 27, and 13 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with distant recurrences limited to liver or lung showed a median OS of 46 and 48 months, respectively. The incidence of recurrent disease was higher in patients with rectal cancer than in patients with colon cancer, predominantly due to higher rates of distant recurrences. OS after recurrent disease was impaired, but subgroups of patients diagnosed with recurrent disease limited to one site showed statistically significantly longer OS., Significance: Population-based data on recurrent colorectal cancer are rare, but crucial for counseling patients and their physicians. This large nationwide, population-based study provides an up-to-date overview of the epidemiology of recurrent disease in patients with stage II and III primary colon and rectal cancer treated with surgical resection., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection has multiple promising applications in oncology, but the road toward implementation in clinical practice is unclear. We aimed to support the implementation process by exploring potential future pathways of ctDNA testing. To do so, we studied four ctDNA-testing applications in two cancer types and elicited opinions from 30 ctDNA experts in the Netherlands. Our results showed that the current available evidence differed per application and cancer type. Tumor profiling and monitoring treatment response were found most likely to be implemented in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within 5 years. For colorectal cancer, applications of ctDNA testing were found to be at an early stage in the implementation process. Demonstrating clinical utility was found a key aspect for successful implementation, but there was no consensus regarding the evidence requirements. The next step toward implementation is to define how clinical utility of biomarkers should be evaluated. Finally, these data indicate that specific challenges for each clinical application and tumor type should be appropriately addressed in a deliberative process involving all stakeholders to ensure implementation of ctDNA testing and timely access for patients., (© 2023 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Current morphologic features defining advanced adenomas (size ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component) cannot optimally distinguish individuals at high risk or low risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (me-CRC), which may result in suboptimal surveillance. Certain DNA copy-number alterations (CNAs) are associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression. We aimed to evaluate whether these molecular features can better predict an individual's risk of me-CRC than the morphologic advanced adenoma features.In this nested case-control study, 529 individuals with a single adenoma at first colonoscopy were selected from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. DNA copy-number profiles were determined, by low-coverage whole-genome sequencing. Prevalence of CNAs in advanced and non-advanced adenomas and its association (OR) with me-CRC was assessed. For the latter, cases (with me-CRC) were matched to controls (without me-CRC) on follow-up, age and sex.CNAs associated with adenoma-to-carcinoma progression were observed in 85/267 (32%) of advanced adenomas and in 27/262 (10%) of non-advanced adenomas. me-CRC was statistically significantly associated, also after adjustment for other variables, with age at baseline [OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval CI), 1.03-1.26; P = 0.012], advanced adenomas (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.50-4.01; P < 0.001) and with the presence of ≥3 DNA copy-number losses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI. 1.02-3.54; P = 0.043).Molecularly-defined high-risk adenomas were associated with me-CRC, but the association of advanced adenoma with me-CRC was stronger., Significance: Identifying new biomarkers may improve prediction of me-CRC for individuals with adenomas and optimize surveillance intervals to reduce risk of colorectal cancer and reduce oversurveillance of patients with low risk of colorectal cancer. Use of DNA CNAs alone does not improve prediction of me-CRC. Further research to improve risk classification is required., (© 2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers., Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles., Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states ( phase I ), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations ( phase II ). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence., Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Board membership: TRL, RES, LG, FM, CS, RS, H-MC, ED, AK, HS, GAM, SI. Consultancy: LG, UL, GPY, FM, JM, SG, ED, AK, HS, SI. Expert testimony: FM. Grants or contract research: RSB, TRL, RES, FM, RS, FM, ED, ML, GAM, LC. Lectures/Other education events: LG, FM, H-MC, ED, AK. Patents: GPY, RSB, BC, AK, GAM. Receipt of equipment or supplies: LG, RES, ED, ML, GAM. Stock/Stock options: GPY, UL, JM, SG, ED, AK, GAM. Other professional relationships: GPY, SG., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Approximately 20-30% of stage I-III CRC patients develop a recurrent tumour or metastases after curative surgical resection. Post-operative follow-up is indicated for the first five years after curative surgical resection. As intensified follow-up after curative surgical resection has shown no effect on survival, patient organisations and policy makers have advocated for a more patient-centred approach to follow-up. The objective of this study is to successfully implement patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) in six hospitals in The Netherlands, with as ultimate aim to come to a recommendation for a patient-centred follow-up schedule for stage I-III CRC patients treated with surgical resection with curative intent., Methods: This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (SW-CRT) in six participating centres. During the trial, three centres will implement PHFU after six months; the other three centres will implement PHFU after 12 months of inclusion in the control group. Eligible patients are those with pT2-4N0M0 or pT1-4N1-2M0 CRC, who are 18 years or older and have been free of disease for 12 months after curative surgical resection. The studied intervention is PHFU, starting 12 months after curative resection. The in-hospital, standard-of-care follow-up currently implemented in the participating centres functions as the comparator. The proportion of patients who had contact with the hospital regarding CRC follow-up between 12-24 months after curative surgical resection is the primary endpoint of this study. Quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and survival are the secondary endpoints., Discussion: The results of this study will provide evidence on whether nationwide implementation of PHFU for CRC in The Netherlands will be successful in reducing contact between patient and health care provider. Comparison of PROMs between in-hospital follow-up and PHFU will be provided. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of PHFU will be assessed., Trial Registration: Dutch Trail Register (NTR): NL9266 (Registered on January 1st, 2021)., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: Karen Canfell is co-PI of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, “Compass”, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. Karen Canfell is co-PI on a major implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific which has received support from the Minderoo Foundation and the Frazer Family Foundation and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc. Dr. Lew reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Feletto reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, outside the submitted work. Dr Coupé reports grants from Dutch Cancer Foundation, grants from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, and from Maag Lever Darm Stichting MLDS, outside the submitted work., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Recent discoveries in molecular diagnostics and drug treatments have improved the treatment of patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from solely platinum-based chemotherapy to more personalized treatment, including targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, these improvements come at considerable costs, highlighting the need to assess their cost-effectiveness in order to optimize lung cancer care. Traditionally, cost-effectiveness models for the evaluation of new lung cancer treatments were based on the findings of the randomized control trials (RCTs). However, the strict RCT inclusion criteria make RCT patients not representative of patients in the real-world. Patients in RCTs have a better prognosis than patients in a real-world setting. Therefore, in this study, we developed and validated a diagnosis-treatment decision model for patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous NSCLC based on real-world data in the Netherlands. The model is a patient-level microsimulation model implemented as discrete event simulation with five health events. Patients are simulated from diagnosis to death, including at most three treatment lines. The base-model (non-personalized strategy) was populated using real-world data of patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy between 2008 and 2014 in one of six Dutch teaching hospitals. To simulate personalized care, molecular tumor characteristics were incorporated in the model based on the literature. The impact of novel targeted treatments and immunotherapies was included based on published RCTs. To validate the model, we compared survival under a personalized treatment strategy with observed real-world survival. This model can be used for health-care evaluation of personalized treatment for patients with advanced (inoperable) NSCLC in the Netherlands., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising new biomarker with multiple potential applications in cancer care. Estimating total cost of ctDNA testing is necessary for reimbursement and implementation, but challenging because of variations in workflow. We aimed to develop a micro-costing framework for consistent cost calculation of ctDNA testing. First, the foundation of the framework was built, based on the complete step-wise diagnostic workflow of ctDNA testing. Second, the costing method was set up, including costs for personnel, materials, equipment, overhead, and failures. Third, the framework was evaluated by experts and applied to six case studies, including PCR-, mass spectrometry-, and next-generation sequencing-based platforms, from three Dutch hospitals. The developed ctDNA micro-costing framework includes the diagnostic workflow from blood sample collection to diagnostic test result. The framework was developed from a Dutch perspective and takes testing volume into account. An open access tool is provided to allow for laboratory-specific calculations to explore the total costs of ctDNA testing specific workflow parameters matching the setting of interest. It also allows to straightforwardly assess the impact of alternative prices or assumptions on the cost per sample by simply varying the input parameters. The case studies showed a wide range of costs, from €168 to €7638 ($199 to $9124) per sample, and generated information. These costs are sensitive to the (coverage of) platform, setting, and testing volume., (Copyright © 2023 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage individuals for colonoscopy. Although these programs reduce CRC incidence and CRC-related mortality, the detection of advanced precursor lesions (advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps) by FIT could be improved. As an alternative for FIT, the antibody-based multitargetFIT (mtFIT) has been proposed. The mtFIT measures three protein markers: hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2. In a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study in a large colonoscopy-controlled series (n = 1284), mtFIT showed increased sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN), at equal specificity, compared to FIT (42.9% versus 37.3%; p = 0.025). This increase was mainly due to a higher sensitivity of mtFIT for advanced adenomas (37.8% versus 28.1% for FIT; p = 0.006). The present mtFIT study aims to prospectively validate these findings in the context of the Dutch national CRC screening program., Method: The mtFIT study is a cross-sectional intervention study with a paired design. Eligible subjects for the Dutch FIT-based national CRC screening program are invited to perform mtFIT in addition to FIT. Samples are collected at home, from the same bowel movement, and are shipped to a central laboratory by postal mail. If either one or both tests are positive, participants are referred for colonoscopy. Detailed colonoscopy and pathology data are centrally stored in a national screening database (ScreenIT; Topicus, Deventer, the Netherlands) that is managed by the screening organization, and will be retrieved for this study. We aim to determine the relative sensitivity for AN, comprising of CRC, advanced adenomas and advanced serrated polyps, of mtFIT compared to FIT at an equal positivity rate. Additionally, we will use the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal CAncer model to predict lifetime health effects and costs for programmatic mtFIT- versus FIT-based screening. The target sample size is 13,131 participants., Discussion: The outcome of this study will inform on the comparative clinical utility of mtFIT versus FIT in the Dutch national CRC screening program and is an important step forward in the development of a new non-invasive stool test for CRC screening., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT05314309, registered April 6th 2022, first inclusions March 25th 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT05314309&cntry=&state=&city=&dist =., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Longitudinal adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is reported using different summarizing measures, which hampers international comparison. We provide evidence to guide recommendations on which longitudinal adherence measure to report. Using adherence data over four stool-based CRC screening rounds in three countries, we calculated six summarizing adherence measures; adherence over all rounds, adherence per round, rescreening, full programme adherence (yes/no), regularity (never/inconsistent/consistent screenees) and number of times participated. For each measure, we calculated the accuracy in capturing the observed adherence patterns. Using the ASCCA model, we predicted screening effectiveness when using summarizing measures as model input versus the observed adherence patterns. Adherence over all rounds in the Italian, Spanish and Dutch cohorts was 64.9%, 42.8% and 61.5%, respectively, and the proportion of consistent screenees was 50.9%, 26.3% and 45.7%. Number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as simulating the observed adherence patterns of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands (mortality reductions: 24.4%, 16.9% and 23.5%). Adherence over all rounds and adherence per round were least accurate. Screening effectiveness was overestimated when using adherence over all rounds (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.4% and 25.7%) and adherence per round (mortality reductions: 26.8%, 19.5% and 25.9%). To conclude, number of times participated and regularity were most accurate and resulted in similar model-predicted screening effectiveness as using the observed adherence patterns. However they require longitudinal data. To facilitate international comparison of CRC screening programme performance, consensus on an accurate adherence measure to report should be reached., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Beatriz Carvalho is inventor on several biomarker patents pending. GA Meijer is co-founder and board member (CSO) of CRCbioscreen BV, he has a research collaboration with CZ Health Insurances (cash matching to ZonMW grant) and he has research collaborations with Exact Sciences, Sysmex, Sentinel Ch. SpA, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDX), DELFI and Hartwig Medical Foundation; these companies provide materials, equipment and/or sample/genomic analyses. Evelien Dekker has endoscopic equipment on loan of FujiFilm and Olympus, received a research grant from FujiFilm, and received honorarium for consultancy from FujiFilm, Olympus, GI Supply, CPP-FAP, PAION and Ambu, and speakers' fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION and FujiFilm., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Analyzing and communicating uncertainty is essential in medical decision making. To judge whether risks are acceptable, policy makers require information on the expected outcomes but also on the uncertainty and potential losses related to the chosen strategy. We aimed to compare methods used to represent the impact of uncertainty in decision problems involving many strategies, enhance existing methods, and provide an open-source and easy-to-use tool., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify methods used to represent the impact of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses comparing multiple strategies. We applied the identified methods to probabilistic sensitivity analysis outputs of 3 published decision-analytic models comparing multiple strategies. Subsequently, we compared the following characteristics: type of information conveyed, use of a fixed or flexible willingness-to-pay threshold, output interpretability, and the graphical discriminatory ability. We further proposed adjustments and integration of methods to overcome identified limitations of existing methods., Results: The literature search resulted in the selection of 9 methods. The 3 methods with the most favorable characteristics to compare many strategies were 1) the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), 2) the expected loss curve (ELC), and 3) the incremental benefit curve (IBC). The information required to assess confidence in a decision often includes the average loss and the probability of cost-effectiveness associated with each strategy. Therefore, we proposed the integration of information presented in an ELC and CEAC into a single heat map., Conclusions: This article presents an overview of methods presenting uncertainty in multiple-strategy cost-effectiveness analyses, with their strengths and shortcomings. We proposed a heat map as an alternative method that integrates all relevant information required for health policy and medical decision making., Highlights: To assess confidence in a chosen course of action, decision makers require information on both the probability and the consequences of making a wrong decision.This article contains an overview of methods for presenting uncertainty in multiple-strategy cost-effectiveness analyses.We propose a heat map that combines the probability of cost-effectiveness from the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) with the consequences of a wrong decision from the expected loss curve.Collapsing of the CEAC can be reduced by relaxing the CEAC, as proposed in this article.Code in Microsoft Excel and R is provided to easily analyze data using the methods discussed in this article.

Purpose: Lynch syndrome-related colorectal cancer (CRC) risk substantially varies by mismatch repair (MMR) gene. We evaluated the health impact and cost-effectiveness of MMR gene-tailored colonoscopic surveillance., Methods: We first estimated sex- and MMR gene-specific cumulative lifetime risk of first CRC without colonoscopic surveillance using an optimization algorithm. Next, we harnessed these risk estimates in a microsimulation model, "Policy1-Lynch," and compared 126 colonoscopic surveillance strategies against no surveillance., Results: The most cost-effective strategy was 3-yearly surveillance from age 25 to 70 years (pathogenic variants [path&#95;] in MLH1 [path&#95;MLH1], path&#95;MSH2) with delayed surveillance for path&#95;MSH6 (age 30-70 years) and path&#95;PMS2 (age 35-70 years) heterozygotes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = Australian dollars (A) $8,833/life-year saved). This strategy averted 60 CRC deaths (153 colonoscopies per death averted) over the lifetime of 1000 confirmed patients with Lynch syndrome (vs no surveillance). This also reduced colonoscopies by 5% without substantial change in health outcomes (vs nontailored 3-yearly surveillance from 25-70 years). Generally, starting surveillance at age 25 (vs 20) years was more cost-effective with minimal effect on life-years saved and starting 5 to 10 years later for path&#95;MSH6 and path&#95;PMS2 heterozygotes (vs path&#95;MLH1 and path&#95;MSH2) further improved cost-effectiveness. Surveillance end age (70/75/80 years) had a minor effect. Three-yearly surveillance strategies were more cost-effective (vs 1 or 2-yearly) but prevented 3 fewer CRC deaths., Conclusion: MMR gene-specific colonoscopic surveillance would be effective and cost-effective., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest K.C. is co–principle investigator of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, “Compass”, run by The Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity; “Compass” receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. She is also co–principle investigator on a major implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific which has received support from the Minderoo Foundation and the Frazer Family Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc. She also receives support for a range of other Australian and international government projects including support from philanthropic organizations, WHO, and government agencies related to cervical cancer control. K.C. is a Chair or member of a number of government or meetings convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), or philanthropic organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). N.T. is a recipient of a Cancer Institute NSW Career Development Fellowship and a Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme project grant. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of eHealth in palliative care is scarce. Oncokompas, a fully automated behavioral intervention technology, aims to support self-management in cancer patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the eHealth application Oncokompas among incurably ill cancer patients, compared to care as usual. In this randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized into the intervention group (access to Oncokompas) or the waiting-list control group (access after three months). Healthcare costs, productivity losses, and health status were measured at baseline and three months. Intervention costs were also taken into account. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals around the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A probabilistic approach was used because of the skewness of cost data. Altogether, 138 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the intervention group (69) or the control group (69). In the base case analysis, mean total costs and mean total effects were non-significantly lower in the intervention group (-€806 and -0.01 QALYs). The probability that the intervention was more effective and less costly was 4%, whereas the probability of being less effective and less costly was 74%. Among patients with incurable cancer, Oncokompas does not impact incremental costs and seems slightly less effective in terms of QALYs, compared to care as usual. Future research on the costs of eHealth in palliative cancer care is warranted to assess the generalizability of the findings of this study.

Purpose: A large number of targeted treatment options for stage IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer with specific genetic aberrations in tumor DNA is available. It is therefore important to optimize diagnostic testing strategies, such that patients receive adequate personalized treatment that improves survival and quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy (including diagnostic costs, turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful tests, percentages of correct findings, therapeutic costs, and therapeutic effectiveness) of parallel next generation sequencing (NGS)-based versus sequential single-gene-based testing strategies routinely used in patients with metastasized non-small-cell lung cancer in the Netherlands., Methods: A diagnostic microsimulation model was developed to simulate 100,000 patients with prevalence of genetic aberrations, extracted from real-world data from the Dutch Pathology Registry. These simulated patients were modeled to undergo different testing strategies composed of multiple tests with different test characteristics including single-gene and panel tests, test accuracy, the probability of an unsuccessful test, and TAT. Diagnostic outcomes were linked to a previously developed treatment model, to predict average long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of parallel versus sequential testing., Results: NGS-based parallel testing for all actionable genetic aberrations is on average €266 cheaper than single-gene-based sequential testing, and detects additional relevant targetable genetic aberrations in 20.5% of the cases, given a TAT of maximally 2 weeks. Therapeutic costs increased by €8,358, and 0.12 QALYs were gained, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €69,614/QALY for parallel versus sequential testing., Conclusion: NGS-based parallel testing is diagnostically superior over single-gene-based sequential testing, as it is cheaper and more effective than sequential testing. Parallel testing remains cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 69,614 €/QALY upon inclusion of therapeutic costs and long-term outcomes.

Background: To optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, information regarding the time-dependent risk of advanced adenomas (AA) to develop into CRC is crucial. However, since AA are removed after diagnosis, the time from AA to CRC cannot be observed in an ethically acceptable manner. We propose a statistical method to indirectly infer this time in a progressive three-state disease model using surveillance data., Methods: Sixteen models were specified, with and without covariates. Parameters of the parametric time-to-event distributions from the adenoma-free state (AF) to AA and from AA to CRC were estimated simultaneously, by maximizing the likelihood function. Model performance was assessed via simulation. The methodology was applied to a random sample of 878 individuals from a Norwegian adenoma cohort., Results: Estimates of the parameters of the time distributions are consistent and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have good coverage. For the Norwegian sample (AF: 78%, AA: 20%, CRC: 2%), a Weibull model for both transition times was selected as the final model based on information criteria. The mean time among those who have made the transition to CRC since AA onset within 50 years was estimated to be 4.80 years (95% CI: 0; 7.61). The 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of CRC from AA was 13.8% (95% CI: 7.8%;23.8%) and 15.4% (95% CI: 8.2%;34.0%), respectively., Conclusions: The time-dependent risk from AA to CRC is crucial to explain differences in the outcomes of microsimulation models used for the optimization of CRC prevention. Our method allows for improving models by the inclusion of data-driven time distributions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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 risk of recurrence after resection of a stage II or III colon cancer, and therefore qualification for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), is traditionally based on clinicopathological parameters. However, the parameters used in clinical practice are not able to accurately identify all patients with or without minimal residual disease. Some patients considered 'low-risk' do develop recurrence (undertreatment), whilst other patients receiving ACT might not have developed recurrence at all (overtreatment). We previously analysed tumour tissue expression of 28 protein biomarkers that might improve identification of patients at risk of recurrence. In the present study we aimed to build a prognostic classifier based on these 28 biomarkers and clinicopathological parameters., Methods: Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to build a prognostic classifier based on a well described cohort of 386 patients with stage II and III colon cancer. Separate classifiers were built for patients who were or were not treated with ACT. Routine clinicopathological parameters and tumour tissue immunohistochemistry data were included, available for 28 proteins previously published. Classification trees were pruned until lowest misclassification error was obtained. Survival of the identified subgroups was analysed, and robustness of the selected CART variables was assessed by random forest analysis (1000 trees)., Results: In patients not treated with ACT, prognosis was estimated best based on expression of KCNQ1. Poor disease-free survival (DFS) was observed in those with loss of expression of KCNQ1 (HR = 3.38 (95% CI 2.12 - 5.40); p < 0.001). In patients treated with ACT, key prognostic factors were lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and expression of KCNQ1. Patients with LVI showed poorest DFS, whilst patients without LVI and high expression of KCNQ1 showed most favourable survival (HR = 7.50 (95% CI 3.57-15.74); p < 0.001). Patients without LVI and loss of expression of KCNQ1 had intermediate survival (HR = 3.91 (95% CI 1.76 - 8.72); p = 0.001)., Conclusion: KCNQ1 and LVI were identified as key features in prognostic classifiers for disease-free survival in stage II and III colon cancer patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1:  In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2:  In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. CONCLUSION : The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has received research support from Cook and Medtronic, and financial support for symposium organization from Cook, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Erbe (2009–2109), and speakers’ fees from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (2009–2019). E. Coron has received speakerʼs fees from Fujifilm (2018–2020). E. Dekker has received speaker’s fees from Roche (2018), Norgine (2019), Olympus and GI Supply (both 2019 to 2020), and Fujifilm (2020), and has provided consultancy to Fujifilm (2018), CPP-FAP (2019), GI Supply (2019 to 2020), Olympus (2020 to present), PAION and Ambu (both 2021); she received a research grant from Fujifilm (2017 to 2020) and her department has equipment on loan from Fujifilm (2017 to present) and Olympus (2021). M. Dinis-Ribeiro receives an educational grant from Olympus (2020 to present) and a research grant from Fujifilm (2020 to present); he is co-editor in-chief of Endoscopy. J.E. East has provided consultancy to, and holds share options in, Satisfai Health (2020 to present). C. Hassan has received research support from Fujifilm (2017 to present); his department has received support from Sonoscape. M. Iacucci receives research support from Pentax (2011 to present), Olympus (2017 to present) and Fujifilm (2018 to present). Y. Mori receives consultancy and speaker’s fees from Olympus (2018 to present) and has an ownership interest in Cybernet System Corp. (2020 to present). H. Neumann has provided consultancy to Fujifilm, Sonoscope, and Boston Scientific (all 2019 to 2020). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2020), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 to 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020), and Casen Recordati (2020); her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain (2017 to present), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 to 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED, and is a co-editor of Endoscopy (2015 to 2021). I. Puig has provided advisory services to Fujifilm (2020 to present) and has equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm (both 2019 to present). B. Saunders receives research funding from Olympus (2019 to present). D.J. Tate received an educational grant from Olympus (2018 to 2019). G. Antonelli, M. Bustamante-Balén, G. Cortas, V.M.H. Coupé, D.E. Dobru, M.J.E. Greuter, Y. Hazewinkel, B.B.S.L. Houwen, R. Jover, R. Kuvaev, G. Longcroft-Wheaton, M.D. Rutter, and J.L.A. Vleugels declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Fujifilm and Pentax (both 2015 to present); his department has received research grants from Fujifilm and Pentax (both 2015 to present). E. Dekker has received speaker’s fees from Roche (2018), Norgine (2019), Olympus and GI Supply (both 2019 to 2020), and Fujifilm (2020), and has provided consultancy to Fujifilm (2018), CPP-FAP (2019), GI Supply (2019 to 2020), Olympus (2020 to present), PAION and Ambu (both 2021); she received a research grant from Fujifilm (2017 to 2020) and her department has equipment on loan from Fujifilm (2017 to present) and Olympus (2021). C. Hassan has received research support from Fujifilm (2017 to present); his department has received support from Sonoscape. M. Dinis-Ribeiro is co-editor in-chief of Endoscopy. V.M.H. Coupé, M.J.E. Greuter, Y. Hazewinkel, B.B.S.L. Houwen, and J.L.A. Vleugels declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: Metamodeling may substantially reduce the computational expense of individual-level state transition simulation models (IL-STM) for calibration, uncertainty quantification, and health policy evaluation. However, because of the lack of guidance and readily available computer code, metamodels are still not widely used in health economics and public health. In this study, we provide guidance on how to choose a metamodel for uncertainty quantification., Methods: We built a simulation study to evaluate the prediction accuracy and computational expense of metamodels for uncertainty quantification using life-years gained (LYG) by treatment as the IL-STM outcome. We analyzed how metamodel accuracy changes with the characteristics of the simulation model using a linear model (LM), Gaussian process regression (GP), generalized additive models (GAMs), and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Finally, we tested these metamodels in a case study consisting of a probabilistic analysis of a lung cancer IL-STM., Results: In a scenario with low uncertainty in model parameters (i.e., small confidence interval), sufficient numbers of simulated life histories, and simulation model runs, commonly used metamodels (LM, ANNs, GAMs, and GP) have similar, good accuracy, with errors smaller than 1% for predicting LYG. With a higher level of uncertainty in model parameters, the prediction accuracy of GP and ANN is superior to LM. In the case study, we found that in the worst case, the best metamodel had an error of about 2.1%., Conclusion: To obtain good prediction accuracy, in an efficient way, we recommend starting with LM, and if the resulting accuracy is insufficient, we recommend trying ANNs and eventually also GP regression.

There is currently no consensus regarding preferred clinical outcome measures following image-guided tumor ablation or clear definitions of oncologic end points. This consensus document proposes standardized definitions for a broad range of oncologic outcome measures with recommendations on how to uniformly document, analyze, and report outcomes. The initiative was coordinated by the Society of Interventional Oncology in collaboration with the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-Event End Points in Cancer Trials, or DATECAN, group. According to predefined criteria, based on experience with clinical trials, an international panel of 62 experts convened. Recommendations were developed using the validated three-step modified Delphi consensus method. Consensus was reached on when to assess outcomes per patient, per session, or per tumor; on starting and ending time and survival time definitions; and on time-to-event end points. Although no consensus was reached on the preferred classification system to report complications, quality of life, and health economics issues, the panel did agree on using the most recent version of a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire. This article provides a framework of key opinion leader recommendations with the intent to facilitate a clear interpretation of results and standardize worldwide communication. Widespread adoption will improve reproducibility, allow for accurate comparisons, and avoid misinterpretations in the field of interventional oncology research. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Liddell in this issue.

Background: Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown., Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective., Methods: A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS., Results: WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit -€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (-0.002) and more costs (€1059 [-€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness., Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: One reason the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps has not yet been implemented is that the current competence criteria (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovation [PIVI] initiative) are difficult to use in daily practice. To provide guidance for setting alternative easy-to-adopt competence criteria, we determined the lowest proportion of diminutive polyps that should have a correct optical diagnosis to meet the PIVI., Methods: For this simulation study, we used datasets from 2 prospectively collected cohorts of patients who underwent colonoscopy in either a primary colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening setting. In the simulation approach, virtual endoscopists or computer-aided diagnosis systems performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps with a fixed diagnostic performance level (strategy) on all individuals in the cohort who had ≥1 diminutive polyp. Strategies were defined by systematically varying the proportion of correct optical diagnoses for each polyp subtype (ie, adenomas, hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesions). For each strategy, we determined whether PIVI-1 (≥90% agreement with U.S. or European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] surveillance guidelines) and PIVI-2 (≥90% negative predictive value [NPV] for neoplastic lesions in the rectosigmoid) were met using Monte Carlo sampling with 1000 repetitions, with histology as reference., Results: The level of overall diagnostic accuracy to achieve the PIVI differed significantly depending on the clinical setting and guidelines used. In the colonoscopy screening setting, all diagnostic strategies in which 92% of all diminutive polyps (regardless of histology) were diagnosed correctly led to 90% or more agreement with U.S. surveillance intervals (ie, PIVI-1). For all diagnostic strategies in which ≥89% of all diminutive polyps were correctly diagnosed, at least 90% NPV was achieved (ie, PIVI-2). For the FIT screening setting, values were respectively ≥77% and ≥94%. When using ESGE guidelines, PIVI-1 was in both settings already met when 40% of all diminutive polyps were diagnosed correctly., Conclusions: In contrast to the fixed PIVI criteria, our simulation study shows that different thresholds for the proportion of correctly diagnosed diminutive polyps lead to different clinical consequences depending on guidelines and clinical setting. However, this target proportion of diminutive colorectal polyps correctly diagnosed with optical diagnosis represents easier-to-adopt competence criteria., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet it leaves room for improvement., Objective: To develop a multitarget FIT (mtFIT) with better diagnostic performance than FIT., Design: Diagnostic test accuracy study., Setting: Colonoscopy-controlled series., Participants: Persons ( n = 1284) from a screening ( n = 1038) and referral ( n = 246) population were classified by their most advanced lesion (CRC [ n = 47], advanced adenoma [ n = 135], advanced serrated polyp [ n = 30], nonadvanced adenoma [ n = 250], and nonadvanced serrated polyp [ n = 53]), along with control participants ( n = 769)., Measurements: Antibody-based assays were developed and applied to leftover FIT material. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to biomarker concentrations to identify the optimal combination for detecting advanced neoplasia. Performance of this combination, the mtFIT, was cross-validated using a leave-one-out approach and compared with FIT at equal specificity., Results: The CART analysis showed a combination of hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2-the mtFIT-to have a cross-validated sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of 42.9% (95% CI, 36.2% to 49.9%) versus 37.3% (CI, 30.7% to 44.2%) for FIT ( P = 0.025), with equal specificity of 96.6%. In particular, cross-validated sensitivity for advanced adenomas increased from 28.1% (CI, 20.8% to 36.5%) to 37.8% (CI, 29.6% to 46.5%) ( P = 0.006). On the basis of these results, early health technology assessment indicated that mtFIT-based screening could be cost-effective compared with FIT., Limitation: Study population is enriched with persons from a referral population., Conclusion: Compared with FIT, the mtFIT showed better diagnostic accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia because of an increased detection of advanced adenomas. Moreover, early health technology assessment indicated that these results provide a sound basis to pursue further development of mtFIT as a future test for population-based CRC screening. A prospective screening trial is in preparation., Primary Funding Source: Stand Up to Cancer/Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and HealthHolland.

Background: To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1,000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis., Results: The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23,660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24,643 and €24,542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M)., Conclusions: On the basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present., Impact: Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)