Evaluating benefit-to-burden ratios of the established and emerging colorectal cancer screening strategies.

Derek W Ebner,A Mark Fendrick,John B Kisiel,Chris Estes,Vahab Vahdat,A Burak Ozbay,Paul J Limburg
{"title":"Evaluating benefit-to-burden ratios of the established and emerging colorectal cancer screening strategies.","authors":"Derek W Ebner,A Mark Fendrick,John B Kisiel,Chris Estes,Vahab Vahdat,A Burak Ozbay,Paul J Limburg","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nRecommended noninvasive strategies for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening include multitarget stool DNA and fecal immunochemical test from ages 45 to 75 years. With new clinical trials, performance data for next-generation multitarget stool DNA, multitarget stool RNA, and blood-based screening tests are now available. This decision analytical model study evaluated the estimated benefit-to-burden ratio by means of efficient frontiers for noninvasive established and emerging CRC screening strategies.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nOutcomes were estimated using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality microsimulation model for average-risk individuals in the United States. Screening strategies were next-generation multitarget stool DNA (an updated marker panel), fecal immunochemical tests, multitarget stool RNA, or blood-based tests every 1-3 years, over various age ranges. Test performance inputs were derived from recent large clinical trials. A strategy was deemed efficient if no other strategy provided more life-years gained with equivalent or fewer lifetime colonoscopies and near-efficient if within 3 days of life-years gained of the efficient frontier.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nAll modeled screening strategies resulted in life-years gained vs no screening. No strategy using blood-based tests was efficient or near-efficient. Overall, 10 strategies were efficient (6 next-generation multitarget stool DNA and 4 fecal immunochemical tests), including 2 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (biennial and triennial next-generation multitarget stool DNA). Overall, 22 strategies were near-efficient, including 4 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (annual, biennial, or triennial fecal immunochemical test; annual next-generation multitarget stool DNA).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nBased on this modeling study, next-generation multitarget stool DNA was the only noninvasive screening test at guideline-endorsed interval and age-recommended ranges that was deemed efficient. Blood-based and multitarget stool RNA strategies were deemed not efficient for primary screening.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Recommended noninvasive strategies for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening include multitarget stool DNA and fecal immunochemical test from ages 45 to 75 years. With new clinical trials, performance data for next-generation multitarget stool DNA, multitarget stool RNA, and blood-based screening tests are now available. This decision analytical model study evaluated the estimated benefit-to-burden ratio by means of efficient frontiers for noninvasive established and emerging CRC screening strategies. METHODS Outcomes were estimated using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality microsimulation model for average-risk individuals in the United States. Screening strategies were next-generation multitarget stool DNA (an updated marker panel), fecal immunochemical tests, multitarget stool RNA, or blood-based tests every 1-3 years, over various age ranges. Test performance inputs were derived from recent large clinical trials. A strategy was deemed efficient if no other strategy provided more life-years gained with equivalent or fewer lifetime colonoscopies and near-efficient if within 3 days of life-years gained of the efficient frontier. RESULTS All modeled screening strategies resulted in life-years gained vs no screening. No strategy using blood-based tests was efficient or near-efficient. Overall, 10 strategies were efficient (6 next-generation multitarget stool DNA and 4 fecal immunochemical tests), including 2 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (biennial and triennial next-generation multitarget stool DNA). Overall, 22 strategies were near-efficient, including 4 strategies among those ages 45-75 years (annual, biennial, or triennial fecal immunochemical test; annual next-generation multitarget stool DNA). CONCLUSION Based on this modeling study, next-generation multitarget stool DNA was the only noninvasive screening test at guideline-endorsed interval and age-recommended ranges that was deemed efficient. Blood-based and multitarget stool RNA strategies were deemed not efficient for primary screening.
评估现有和新出现的结直肠癌筛查策略的收益-负担比率。
推荐的平均风险结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的无创策略包括45 - 75岁人群的多靶点粪便DNA和粪便免疫化学测试。随着新的临床试验,下一代多靶点粪便DNA、多靶点粪便RNA和基于血液的筛查测试的性能数据现已可用。该决策分析模型研究通过无创和新兴CRC筛查策略的有效前沿评估了估计的收益-负担比。方法使用美国平均风险个体的结直肠癌和腺瘤发病率和死亡率微观模拟模型估计结果。筛查策略包括下一代多靶点粪便DNA(一种更新的标记面板)、粪便免疫化学测试、多靶点粪便RNA或每1-3年进行一次不同年龄范围的血液检测。测试性能输入来自最近的大型临床试验。如果没有其他策略能够提供更多的生命年和更少的生命年结肠镜检查,那么该策略被认为是有效的,如果在有效边界的3天内获得了近有效的生命年。结果所有模型筛选策略均可获得与未筛查相比的寿命年。没有一种使用血液检测的策略是有效的或接近有效的。总体而言,10种策略是有效的(6种下一代粪便多靶点DNA和4种粪便免疫化学测试),其中2种策略适用于45-75岁的人群(两年一次和三年一次的下一代粪便多靶点DNA)。总体而言,22种策略接近有效,其中4种策略适用于45-75岁的患者(每年、两年或三年一次的粪便免疫化学测试;每年一次的下一代多靶点粪便DNA)。基于该模型研究,下一代多靶点粪便DNA是唯一在指南认可的间隔和年龄推荐范围内被认为有效的无创筛查试验。基于血液和多靶点的粪便RNA策略被认为对初级筛查无效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信