51
|
Keys MT, Serra-Burriel M, Martínez-Lizaga N, Pellisé M, Balaguer F, Sánchez A, Bernal-Delgado E, Castells A. Population-based organized screening by faecal immunochemical testing and colorectal cancer mortality: a natural experiment. Int J Epidemiol 2021; 50:143-155. [PMID: 33211822 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population-based organized screening programmes for colorectal cancer (CRC) are underway worldwide, with many based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT). No clinical trials assessing FIT compared with no screening are planned, and few studies have assessed the population impact of such programmes. METHODS Before 2010, 11 out of 50 Spanish provinces initiated population-based organized screening programmes with FIT for an average-risk population aged 50-69 years. We used a quasi-experimental design across Spanish provinces between 1999 and 2016 to evaluate their impact on population age-standardized mortality and incidence rates due to CRC. Difference-in-differences and synthetic control analyses were performed to test for validation of statistical assumptions and to assess the dynamics of screening-associated changes in outcomes over time. RESULTS No differences in outcome trends between exposed (n = 11) and control (n = 36) provinces were observed for up to 7 years preceding the implementation of screening. Relative to controls, exposed provinces experienced a mean increase in age-standardized incidence of 10.08% [95% confidence interval (CI) (5.09, 15.07)] 2 years after implementation, followed by a reduction in age-standardized mortality rates due to CRC of 8.82% [95% CI (3.77, 13.86)] after 7 years. Results were similar for both women and men. No associated changes were observed in adjacent age bands not targeted by screening, nor for 10 other major causes of death in the exposed provinces. CONCLUSIONS FIT-based organized screening in Spain was associated with reductions in population colorectal cancer mortality. Further research is warranted in order to assess the replicability and external validity of our findings, and on gender-specific use of FIT in organized screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew T Keys
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Biodemography, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Economics, Center for Research in Health and Economics (CRES), Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Miquel Serra-Burriel
- Department of Economics, Center for Research in Health and Economics (CRES), Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Natalia Martínez-Lizaga
- Data Science in Health Services and Policy Research, Institute for Health Sciences in Aragón (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.,Spanish Health Services Research Network on Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Maria Pellisé
- Department of Gastroenterology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Francesc Balaguer
- Department of Gastroenterology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ariadna Sánchez
- Department of Gastroenterology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Enrique Bernal-Delgado
- Data Science in Health Services and Policy Research, Institute for Health Sciences in Aragón (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.,Spanish Health Services Research Network on Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Antoni Castells
- Department of Gastroenterology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
52
|
Saito Y, Oka S, Kawamura T, Shimoda R, Sekiguchi M, Tamai N, Hotta K, Matsuda T, Misawa M, Tanaka S, Iriguchi Y, Nozaki R, Yamamoto H, Yoshida M, Fujimoto K, Inoue H. Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Endosc 2021; 33:486-519. [PMID: 33713493 DOI: 10.1111/den.13972] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2021] [Revised: 02/21/2021] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yutaka Saito
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shiro Oka
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Ryo Shimoda
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Naoto Tamai
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kinichi Hotta
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Masashi Misawa
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shinji Tanaka
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Ryoichi Nozaki
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | | | - Haruhiro Inoue
- Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
53
|
Kalyta A, De Vera MA, Peacock S, Telford JJ, Brown CJ, Donnellan F, Gill S, Loree JM. Canadian Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Do They Need an Update Given Changing Incidence and Global Practice Patterns? Curr Oncol 2021; 28:1558-1570. [PMID: 33919428 PMCID: PMC8161738 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28030147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and second leading cause of cancer death in Canada. Organized screening programs targeting Canadians aged 50 to 74 at average risk of developing the disease have contributed to decreased rates of CRC, improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. However, data shows that recent incidence reductions are unique to the screening-age population, while rates in people under-50 are on the rise. Similar incidence patterns in the United States prompted the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend screening begin at age 45 rather than 50. We conducted a review of screening practices in Canada, framing them in the context of similar global health systems as well as the evidence supporting the recent U.S. recommendations. Epidemiologic changes in Canada suggest earlier screening initiation in average-risk individuals may be reasonable, but the balance of costs to benefits remains unclear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anastasia Kalyta
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer/University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada; (A.K.); (S.G.)
| | - Mary A. De Vera
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada;
| | - Stuart Peacock
- Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada;
| | - Jennifer J. Telford
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada; (J.J.T.); (F.D.)
| | - Carl J. Brown
- Division of General Surgery, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada;
| | - Fergal Donnellan
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada; (J.J.T.); (F.D.)
| | - Sharlene Gill
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer/University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada; (A.K.); (S.G.)
| | - Jonathan M. Loree
- Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer/University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada; (A.K.); (S.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
54
|
Zhou J, Zheng R, Zhang S, Zeng H, Wang S, Chen R, Sun K, Li M, Gu J, Zhuang G, Wei W. Colorectal cancer burden and trends: Comparison between China and major burden countries in the world. Chin J Cancer Res 2021; 33:1-10. [PMID: 33707923 PMCID: PMC7941684 DOI: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2021.01.01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To summarize the colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and trend in the world, and compare the difference of CRC burden between other countries and China. Methods Incidence and mortality data were extracted from the GLOBOCAN2018 and Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Age-specific incidence trend was conducted by Joinpoint analysis and average annual percent changes were calculated. Results About 1.85 million new cases and 0.88 million deaths were expected in 2018 worldwide, including 0.52 million (28.20%) new cases and 0.25 million (28.11%) deaths in China. Hungary had the highest age-standardized incidence and mortality rates in the world, while for China, the incidence and mortality rates were only half of that. CRC incidence and mortality were highly correlated with human development index (HDI). Unlike the rapid increase in Republic of Korea and the downward trend in Canada and Australia, the age-standardized incidence rates by world standard population in China and Norway were rising gradually. The age-specific incidence rate in the age group of 50−59 years in China was increasing rapidly, while in Republic of Korea and Canada, the fastest growing age group was 30−39 years. Conclusions The variations of CRC burden reflect the difference of risk factors, as well as levels of HDI and screening (early detection activities). The burden of CRC in China is high, and the incidence of CRC continues to increase, which may lead to a sustained increase in the burden of CRC in China in the future. Screening should be expanded to control CRC, and focused on young people in China.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiachen Zhou
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an 710061, China.,National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Rongshou Zheng
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Siwei Zhang
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Hongmei Zeng
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Shaoming Wang
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Ru Chen
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Kexin Sun
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Minjuan Li
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Jianhua Gu
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Guihua Zhuang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an 710061, China
| | - Wenqiang Wei
- National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| |
Collapse
|
55
|
Piscitello A, Saoud L, Fendrick AM, Borah BJ, Hassmiller Lich K, Matney M, Ozbay AB, Parton M, Limburg PJ. Estimating the impact of differential adherence on the comparative effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0244431. [PMID: 33373409 PMCID: PMC7771985 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Accepted: 12/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Real-world adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies is imperfect. The CRC-AIM microsimulation model was used to estimate the impact of imperfect adherence on the relative benefits and burdens of guideline-endorsed, stool-based screening strategies. METHODS Predicted outcomes of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (HSgFOBT) were simulated for 40-year-olds free of diagnosed CRC. For robustness, imperfect adherence was incorporated in multiple ways and with extensive sensitivity analysis. Analysis 1 assumed adherence from 0%-100%, in 10% increments. Analysis 2 longitudinally applied real-world first-round differential adherence rates (base-case imperfect rates = 40% annual FIT vs 34% annual HSgFOBT vs 70% triennial mt-sDNA). Analysis 3 randomly assigned individuals to receive 1, 5, or 9 lifetime (9 = 100% adherence) mt-sDNA tests and 1, 5, or 9 to 26 (26 = 100% adherence) FIT tests. Outcomes are reported per 1000 individuals compared with no screening. RESULTS Each screening strategy decreased CRC incidence and mortality versus no screening. In individuals screened between ages 50-75 and adherence ranging from 10%a-100%, the life-years gained (LYG) for triennial mt-sDNA ranged from 133.1-300.0, for annual FIT from 96.3-318.1, and for annual HSgFOBT from 99.8-320.6. At base-case imperfect adherence rates, mt-sDNA resulted in 19.1% more LYG versus FIT, 25.4% more LYG versus HSgFOBT, and generally had preferable efficiency ratios while offering the most LYG. Completion of at least 21 FIT tests is needed to reach approximately the same LYG achieved with 9 mt-sDNA tests. CONCLUSIONS Adherence assumptions affect the conclusions of CRC screening microsimulations that are used to inform CRC screening guidelines. LYG from FIT and HSgFOBT are more sensitive to changes in adherence assumptions than mt-sDNA because they require more tests be completed for equivalent benefit. At imperfect adherence rates, mt-sDNA provides more LYG than FIT or HSgFOBT at an acceptable tradeoff in screening burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Leila Saoud
- Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - A. Mark Fendrick
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Bijan J. Borah
- Department of Health Services Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Kristen Hassmiller Lich
- Department of Health Policy & Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Michael Matney
- Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - A. Burak Ozbay
- Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - Marcus Parton
- Exact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - Paul J. Limburg
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
56
|
de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Veldwijk J, Jonker MF, Buis S, Huisman J, Bindels P. What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 14:269-281. [PMID: 33150461 PMCID: PMC7884368 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00477-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Background and Objective Non-participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening needs to be decreased to achieve its full potential as a public health strategy. To facilitate successful implementation of CRC screening towards unscreened individuals, this study aimed to quantify the impact of screening and individual characteristics on non-participation in CRC screening. Methods An online discrete choice experiment partly based on qualitative research was used among 406 representatives of the Dutch general population aged 55–75 years. In the discrete choice experiment, respondents were offered a series of choices between CRC screening scenarios that differed on five characteristics: effectiveness of the faecal immunochemical screening test, risk of a false-negative outcome, test frequency, waiting time for faecal immunochemical screening test results and waiting time for a colonoscopy follow-up test. The discrete choice experiment data were analysed in a systematic manner using random-utility-maximisation choice processes with scale and/or preference heterogeneity (based on 15 individual characteristics) and/or random intercepts. Results Screening characteristics proved to influence non-participation in CRC screening (21.7–28.0% non-participation rate), but an individual’s characteristics had an even higher impact on CRC screening non-participation (8.4–75.5% non-participation rate); particularly the individual’s attitude towards CRC screening followed by whether the individual had participated in a cancer screening programme before, the decision style of the individual and the educational level of the individual. Our findings provided a high degree of confidence in the internal–external validity. Conclusions This study showed that although screening characteristics proved to influence non-participation in CRC screening, a respondent’s characteristics had a much higher impact on CRC screening non-participation. Policy makers and physicians can use our study insights to improve and tailor their communication plans regarding (CRC) screening for unscreened individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther W de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Bas Donkers
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel F Jonker
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sylvia Buis
- General Practice, Gezondheidscentrum Ommoord, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Huisman
- General Practice, Het Doktershuis, Ridderkerk, The Netherlands
| | - Patrick Bindels
- Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
57
|
Huang F, Peng Y, Ye Q, Chen J, Li Y, Liu S, Xu Y, Huang L. CILP2 overexpression correlates with tumor progression and poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) study. World J Surg Oncol 2020; 18:274. [PMID: 33099318 PMCID: PMC7585680 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-02049-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Genetic alterations play an important role in the progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). Identifying new biomarkers to assess the prognosis of patients with CRC is critical. Cartilage intermediate layer protein 2 (CILP2) gene, screened from TCGA database by bioinformatics, may be closely related to the progression of CRC. CILP2 was barely reported with clinical features of tumors. Materials and methods Clinical information and RNA-seq data were derived from TCGA colorectal carcinoma cohort. CILP2 expression at mRNA level was estimated by bioinformatical analysis of TCGA cases. Tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed containing paraffin-embedded 64 pairs of CRC and matched adjacent normal tissues. The expression at the protein level was detected in 64 pairs of CRC and matched adjacent normal tissues by immunohistochemical analysis. CILP2 expression level and its clinical value were estimated by bioinformatical analysis with linear and logistic regression. Survival analysis was performed between high and low groups of CILP2 expression by Cox regression analysis, and the P value was calculated by the log-rank test. The Kaplan-Meier curves were tested by the log-rank test. Results CILP2 was statistically significantly higher expressed in the CRC tissues when compared with paired adjacent normal tissues in TCGA cohort (P < 0.001) and in the TMA cohort (P = 0.001). Also, CILP2 high expression was strongly correlated with T3/4 stage (P = 0.001), N1/2/3 stage (P = 0.005), M1 stage (P = 0.048), and higher clinical stage (UICC 2010 stage) (P < 0.001) in TCGA cohort, and also positively associated with T3/4 stage (P = 0.022) and higher clinical stage (UICC 2010 stage) (P = 0.03) in TMA cohort. Furthermore, CILP2 overexpression predicted poor prognosis and could be an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.003). Conclusion We revealed that CILP2 is associated with advanced stages and could play a role as an independent predictor of poor survival in CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feng Huang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yuanfei Peng
- Department of Liver Surgery, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Ministry of Education, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China
| | - Qing Ye
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China.
| | - Jinhu Chen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yangming Li
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Shengyuan Liu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Yangmei Xu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Lijie Huang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fujian Province Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, ,350014, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
58
|
Crosby RA, Mamaril CB, Collins T. Cost of Increasing Years-of-Life-Gained (YLG) Using Fecal Immunochemical Testing as a Population-Level Screening Model in a Rural Appalachian Population. J Rural Health 2020; 37:576-584. [PMID: 33078439 DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Given the innovation of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to detect polyps in the rectum and colon for removal by colonoscopy, it is important to determine the cost per Life-Year Gained (LYG) when using FIT as a population-level screening model. This is particularly true for medically underserved rural populations. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to make this determination among rural Appalachians experiencing isolation and economic challenges. METHODS The study occurred in an 8-county area of southeastern Kentucky. Kits were distributed to 1,424 residents. Seven hundred thirty-two kits (51.4%) were completed and returned. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using PrecisionTree 7.6. FINDINGS Reactive test results occurred for 144 of the completed kits (19.7%). Thirty-seven colonoscopies were verified, with 15 of these indicating precancerous changes or actual cancer. Program costs were estimated at $461,952, with the average cost per person screened estimated at $324. Cost per LYG was $7,912. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to an average cost per LYG of $17,200, our findings suggest a highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for this population of medically underserved rural residents. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that the screening program begins to yield positive net benefits at the stage when project recipients undergo colonoscopy, suggesting that this is the key step for behavioral intervention and intensified outreach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard A Crosby
- College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
| | - Cesar B Mamaril
- College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
| | - Tom Collins
- College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
| |
Collapse
|
59
|
Sekiguchi M, Igarashi A, Sakamoto T, Saito Y, Esaki M, Matsuda T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and risk score. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35:1555-1561. [PMID: 32167186 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2019] [Revised: 03/05/2020] [Accepted: 03/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM A risk-stratification score may be useful for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, alongside screening colonoscopy (CS) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based CRC screening strategies using CS, FIT, and the Japanese CRC screening score. METHODS The effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost-effectiveness, and required number of CS procedures were evaluated for screening strategies with primary screening CS (strategy 1), FIT (strategy 2), and the risk score (strategy 3), using a simulation model analysis with two scenarios. In scenario 1, uptake rates for all tests were 60%. In scenario 2, uptake rates for FIT and a risk score were 40%, and those for screening CS and CS following a positive FIT or high risk score were 20% and 70%, respectively. RESULTS In scenario 1, strategy 1 gained the highest QALYs and required the highest cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained for strategy 1 against the others were lower than 5 000 000 JPY. Strategy 1 required more than twice as many CS procedures as the other strategies. In scenario 2, strategy 3 had the highest QALYs and lowest cost, and strategy 1 had the lowest QALYs and highest cost. CONCLUSIONS Screening CS has the potential to be the most effective and cost-effective form of CRC screening, although it requires a large number of CS procedures. However, if non-invasive tests are preferred by recipients, other screening strategies, particularly those using the risk score, can be more effective and cost-effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masau Sekiguchi
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ataru Igarashi
- Unit of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.,Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Taku Sakamoto
- Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yutaka Saito
- Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Minoru Esaki
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takahisa Matsuda
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
60
|
Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Setting: A Randomized Study. Am J Prev Med 2020; 59:404-411. [PMID: 32684359 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2019] [Revised: 03/23/2020] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer screening has been shown to prevent or detect early colorectal cancer and reduce mortality; yet, adherence to screening recommendations remains low, particularly in rural settings. STUDY DESIGN RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Adults (n=7,812) aged 50-75 years and due for colorectal cancer screening in a largely rural health system were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=3,906) or the control (n=3,906) group in September 2016, with analysis following through 2018. INTERVENTION A mailed motivational messaging screening reminder letter with an option to call and request a free at-home fecal immunochemical screening test (intervention) or the standard invitation letter detailing that the individual was due for screening (control). Multifaceted motivational messaging emphasized colorectal cancer preventability and the ease and affordability of screening, and communicated a limited supply of test kits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Colorectal cancer screening participation within 6 months after mailed invitation was ascertained from the electronic medical record. RESULTS Colorectal cancer screening participation was significantly improved in the intervention (30.1%) vs the usual care control group (22.5%; p<0.001). Individuals randomized to the intervention group had 49% higher odds of being screened over follow-up than those randomized to the control group (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.34, 1.65). A total of 13.2 screening invitations were needed to accomplish 1 additional screening over the usual care. Of the 233 fecal immunochemical test kits mailed to participants, 154 (66.1%) were returned, and 18 (11.7%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS A mailed motivational messaging letter with a low-cost screening alternative increased colorectal cancer screening in this largely rural community with generally poor adherence to screening recommendations. Mailed colorectal cancer screening reminders using motivational messaging may be an effective method for increasing screening and reducing rural colorectal cancer disparities.
Collapse
|
61
|
Trends in incidence, mortality rates, and survival of colorectal cancer in Western Australia from 1990 to 2014: a retrospective whole-population longitudinal study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35:1719-1727. [PMID: 32458398 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03644-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate the trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates among the Western Australian (WA) population. This study further compared the trends with the timing of the implementation and rollout of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) and examined the survival predictors in CRC cases. METHODS This study was a whole-population, retrospective longitudinal study and included all individuals with a confirmed histological diagnosis of primary invasive CRC diagnosed in WA from 1990 to 2014 (n = 25,932). The temporal trends were assessed by Joinpoint regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to asses 5-year survival. Predictors of survival were examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models, adjusting for age of diagnosis. RESULTS The overall CRC incidence showed an upward trend between 1990 and 2010 (annual percent change (APC) = 1.1%); then, there was a downward trend from 2010 to 2014 (APC = - 5.0%). In younger people (< 50 years), the incidence rate increased steadily (APC = 0.9%) over the study period. The overall CRC mortality trend increased from 1990 to 1999 (APC = 1.6%), decreasing after that (APC = - 2.1%). Younger people had better CRC-related 5-year survival than older people (HR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.75-0.87, p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION This study found that CRC incidence and mortality rates decreased among older people over the last 10 years in Western Australia. However, incidence continues to rise for younger people. Hence, more widespread adoption of the screening program, and potential preventive and early diagnostic strategies should become key priorities for the CRC control in WA.
Collapse
|
62
|
Right sided colorectal cancer increases with age and screening should be tailored to reflect this: a national cancer database study. Tech Coloproctol 2020; 25:81-89. [PMID: 32852630 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02329-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2020] [Accepted: 08/10/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance is recommended until age 75. However, rates of surgery for CRC are greatest in the elderly, questioning current guidelines. Tumor sidedness is an emerging prognostic marker that may help guide screening and treatment decisions, with specific benefit evaluating CRC anatomic distribution in the elderly. Our objective was to investigate the anatomical distribution of CRC in the elderly and factors associated with right-sidedness. METHODS The National Cancer Database (2004-2016) was used to identify elderly patients with CRC. Cases were stratified by tumor sidedness and elderly subgroups: 65-74, 75-84, and ≥ 85 years of age, and further categorized by primary site. Multivariate analysis identified factors associated with CRC right-sidedness. The outcomes were CRC sidedness in the elderly, the anatomic distribution by age group, and factors associated with right-sidedness. RESULTS There were 508,219 colorectal cancer patients aged over 65 years identified, 54% of whom had a right-sided cancer. The right-sided incidence rates by age group were 49% (65-74 years), 58.2% (75-84 years), and 65.9% (≥ 85 years) (p < 0.001). Variables associated with right-sidedness were age (OR 1.032; 95% CI 1.031-1.033; p < 0.001), female sex (OR 1.541; 95% CI 1.522-1.561; p < 0.001), Medicare (OR 1.023, 95% CI 1.003-1.043; p = 0.027), year of diagnosis ≥ 2010 (OR 1.133; 95% CI 1.119-1.147; p < 0.001), tumor size > 5 cm (OR 1.474; 95% CI 1.453-1.495; p < 0.001), pathologic stage IV (OR 1.036; 95% CI 1.012-1.060; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS We found higher rates of right-sided colon cancer in the 75 and above age group. This is a population who would benefit greatly from a high-quality and complete colonoscopy for early diagnosis. As screening and surveillance for this age group are not currently recommended, our findings question the lack of universal recommendation of colonoscopy in patients over 75 years old. Guidelines for CRC screening and surveillance should consider the colon cancer right-shift in the elderly population. Based on these results, we recommend thorough assessment of the proximal colon in the elderly.
Collapse
|
63
|
Ali Khan U, Fallah M, Tian Y, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Brenner H, Kharazmi E. Personal History of Diabetes as Important as Family History of Colorectal Cancer for Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115:1103-1109. [PMID: 32618661 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Diabetes mellitus (DM) and colorectal cancer (CRC) share some risk factors, including lifestyle and metabolic disturbances. We aimed to provide in-depth information on the association of CRC risk, especially early-onset CRC, with DM, family history of CRC, and age at DM diagnosis. METHODS A nationwide cohort study was conducted using Swedish family cancer data sets, inpatient, and outpatient registers (follow-up: 1964-2015), including all individuals born after 1931 and their parents (12,614,256 individuals; 559,375 diabetic patients; 162,226 CRC patients). RESULTS DM diagnosis before the age of 50 years was associated with a 1.9-fold increased risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (95% CI for standardized incidence ratio: 1.6-2.3) vs 1.3-fold risk of CRC at/after the age of 50 years (1.2-1.4). DM diagnosis before the age of 50 years in those with a family history of CRC was associated with 6.9-fold risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (4.1-12) and 1.9-fold risk of CRC at/after the age of 50 years (1.4-2.5). Diabetic patients had a similar lifetime risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (0.4%, 95% CI: 0.3%-0.4%) to those with only a family history of CRC (0.5%, 0.5%-0.5%), double that of the population (0.2%, 0.2%-0.2%). DISCUSSION Our large cohort with valid information on DM and family history of cancer showed that DM is associated with increased risk of CRC in a magnitude close to having family history of CRC. Associations of DM and CRC family history with increased CRC risk were most prominent in young adults. These findings warrant further studies on harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in patients with diabetes, especially type 2, at earlier ages than in the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Uzair Ali Khan
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mahdi Fallah
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Yu Tian
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristina Sundquist
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Functional Pathology, Center for Community-based Healthcare Research and Education (CoHRE), School of Medicine, Shimane University, Matsue, Japan
| | - Jan Sundquist
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Functional Pathology, Center for Community-based Healthcare Research and Education (CoHRE), School of Medicine, Shimane University, Matsue, Japan
| | - Hermann Brenner
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elham Kharazmi
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
64
|
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Uri Ladabaum
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 430 Broadway Street, Pavilion C, 3rd Floor C-326, Redwood City, CA 94063-6341, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
65
|
Li B, Shen K, Zhang J, Jiang Y, Yang T, Sun X, Ma X, Zhu J. Serum netrin-1 as a biomarker for colorectal cancer detection. Cancer Biomark 2020; 28:391-396. [PMID: 32474463 DOI: 10.3233/cbm-190340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent evidence support that netrin-1 involves in colorectal carcinogenesis. OBJECTIVE This study was to evaluate the performance of serum netrin-1 for detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) in both clinical/screening sets. METHODS A total of 115 consecutive patients with CRC and matched healthy controls were included in Clinical Set. Fifty subjects with CRC, 50 subjects with advanced adenoma (AA), and 150 matched control participants free of neoplasia were included in Screening Set. RESULTS In Clinical set, subjects with CRC presented higher levels of serum netrin-1 (513.9 ± 22.6 pg/mL) than controls (347.8 ± 20.3 pg/mL, p< 0.0001). Similar in Screening set, serum netrin-1 was higher in CRC (644.5 ± 37.0 pg/mL, both p< 0.0001), compared with controls (407.7 ± 14.8 pg/mL) and AA (416.5 ± 18.5 pg/mL). However, there was no difference between controls and AA (p= 0.752). Compared with the low netrin-1 group, the high group presented increased risk of CRC (Clinical set: OR = 4.300, p< 0.001; Screening set: OR = 7.731, p< 0.001). ROC curve of netrin-1 was developed to detect CRC (Clinical set: AUC 0.703; Screening set: AUC 0.759). CONCLUSIONS It suggests netrin-1 as a potential biomarker for CRC detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo Li
- China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Kexin Shen
- China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Jiayu Zhang
- China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Yang Jiang
- China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Ting Yang
- Beihua University Attached Hospital, Jilin, Jilin, China
| | - Xiaoxu Sun
- The People's Hospital of Jilin Province, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Xiaoming Ma
- Suqian Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Suqian, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jinzhou Zhu
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| |
Collapse
|
66
|
Tsipa A, O'Connor DB, Branley-Bell D, Day F, Hall LH, Sykes-Muskett B, Wilding S, Taylor N, Conner M. Promoting colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase uptake. Health Psychol Rev 2020; 15:371-394. [PMID: 32401175 DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2020.1760726] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a global public health concern. CRC screening is associated with significant reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, however, uptake is suboptimal. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase screening uptake, plus the impact of various moderators. Data from 102 studies including 1.94 million participants were analysed. Results showed significant benefit of all interventions combined (OR, 1.49, 95% CI: 1.43, 1.56, p < 0.001). The effects were similar in studies using objective versus self-reported uptake measures and lower in studies judged to be at high risk of bias. Moderator analyses indicated significant effects for aspects of behaviour (effects lower for studies on non-endoscopic procedures), and intervention (effects higher for studies conducted in community settings, in healthcare systems that are not free, and that use reminders, health-professional providers, paper materials supplemented with in-person or phone contact, but avoid remote contact). Interventions that included behaviour change techniques targeting social support (unspecified or practical), instructions or demonstration of the behaviour, and that added objects to the environment produced stronger effects. The way in which findings can inform interventions to improve CRC screening uptake is discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Dawn Branley-Bell
- Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Fiona Day
- NHS Leeds West Clinical Commissioning Group, Leeds, UK
| | - Louise H Hall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Sarah Wilding
- School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Natalie Taylor
- Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Mark Conner
- School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
67
|
Braun AL, Kässner A, Syrogiannouli L, Selby K, Bulliard JL, Martin Y, Guessous I, Tal K, Del Giovane C, Zwahlen M, Auer R. Association between colorectal cancer testing and insurance type: Evidence from the Swiss Health Interview Survey 2012. Prev Med Rep 2020; 19:101111. [PMID: 32426215 PMCID: PMC7226870 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2019] [Revised: 02/18/2020] [Accepted: 04/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Colonoscopy and FOBT are both recommended for colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy costs much more, so test choice might be linked to insurance type. Private insurance and low deductibles were associated with more colonoscopies. FOBT, which is cheap, was not associated with private insurance.
Both colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but colonoscopy costs much more than FOBT. Swiss insurance offers high or low deductibles and choice of basic or private insurance. We hypothesized that high deductibles and basic insurance discourage colonoscopy, but do not change FOBT rates. We determined the proportion of patients tested for CRC in Switzerland (colonoscopy within 10 years, FOBT within 2 years), and determined associations with health insurance type. We extracted data on 50–75-year-olds from the Swiss Health Interview Surveys of 2012 to determine colonoscopy and FOBT testing rates (n = 7335). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) of CRC testing associated with health insurance type (deductible and private insurance), adjusted for socio-demographic factors (age, gender, education, income) and self-rated health. The weighted proportion of individuals tested for CRC within recommended intervals was 39.5%. Testing with colonoscopy was significantly associated with private insurance (PR 1.85, 95% CI: 1.46–2.35) and low deductible (PR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.56–2.57). Testing with FOBT was significantly associated with deductible (PR 1.71, 95%CI:1.09–2.68) but not with private insurance. About 60% of the Swiss population was not current with CRC testing. After adjusting for covariates, private insurance and low deductible was significantly associated with higher prevalence of CRC testing, indicating that waiving the deductible could increase CRC screening uptake and reduce health inequality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anja Kässner
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Kevin Selby
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-Luc Bulliard
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Yonas Martin
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Idris Guessous
- Unit of Population Epidemiology, Department of Community Medicine and Primary Care and Emergency Medicine (UEP), Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland
| | - Kali Tal
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Cinzia Del Giovane
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Marcel Zwahlen
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Reto Auer
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- Corresponding author at: Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
68
|
Zhong GC, Sun WP, Wan L, Hu JJ, Hao FB. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91:684-697.e15. [PMID: 31790657 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy. RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. CONCLUSIONS FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guo-Chao Zhong
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Wei-Ping Sun
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Lun Wan
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the People's Hospital of Dazu district, Chongqing, China
| | - Jie-Jun Hu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Fa-Bao Hao
- Pediatric Surgery Center, Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China
| |
Collapse
|
69
|
Azad NS, Leeds IL, Wanjau W, Shin EJ, Padula WV. Cost-utility of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years old for average-risk patients. Prev Med 2020; 133:106003. [PMID: 32001308 PMCID: PMC8710143 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2019] [Revised: 01/10/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in patients under the age of 50. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-utility of available screening modalities starting at 40 years in the general population compared to standard screening at 50 years old. A decision tree modeling average-risk of CRC in the United States population was constructed for the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the five most common and effective CRC screening modalities in average-risk 40-year olds versus deferring screening until 50 years old (standard of care) under a limited societal perspective. All parameters were derived from existing literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-utility ratio of each comparator at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY and included multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis. All screening modalities assessed were more cost-effective with increased QALYs than current standard care (no screening until 50). The most favorable intervention by net monetary benefit was flexible sigmoidoscopy ($3284 per person). Flexible sigmoidoscopy, FOBT, and FIT all dominated the current standard of care. Colonoscopy and FIT-DNA were both cost-effective (respectively, $4777 and $11,532 per QALY). The cost-effective favorability of flexible sigmoidoscopy diminished relative to colonoscopy with increasing willingness-to-pay. Regardless of screening modality, CRC screening at 40 years old is cost-effective with increased QALYs compared to current screening initiation at 50 years old, with flexible sigmoidoscopy most preferred. Consideration should be given for a general recommendation to start screening at age 40 for average risk individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nilofer S Azad
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Gastrointestinal Oncology Division, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Ira L Leeds
- Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Waruguru Wanjau
- Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Eun J Shin
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - William V Padula
- Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Pharmaceutical & Health Economics, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
70
|
Coretti S, Ruggeri M, Dibidino R, Gitto L, Marcellusi A, Mennini FS, Cicchetti A. Economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening programs: Affordability for the health service. J Med Screen 2020; 27:186-193. [PMID: 31948342 DOI: 10.1177/0969141319898732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the public colorectal cancer screening program in the Abruzzo region, Italy. METHODS Cost-effectiveness was analysed using a two-armed Markov model comparing: (1) Abruzzo screening program based on biennial faecal immunochemical occult blood testing, with colonoscopy as second level test for individuals with positive results, with (2) Treatment of symptomatic patients according to the stage of the neoplasm. Transition probabilities were adjusted for accuracy of tests and incidence of colorectal cancer. Diagnosis-related groups' charges and field collected data were used to estimate costs. Costs and benefits were discounted by 3.5%. Monte Carlo simulation confirmed the robustness of the model results. RESULTS Assuming a compliance rate of 64.7%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the current colorectal screening program was €433.06/quality adjusted life year gained, considerably lower than conventional thresholds (around €30,000). CONCLUSION Early detection and intervention programs help to avoid a large number of highly debilitating and expensive cancer treatments. These results show that the screening program currently implemented in Abruzzo should be considered as a good investment in health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Coretti
- Department of Economics and Management "Marco Fanno", University of Padova, Italy
| | - Matteo Ruggeri
- Graduate School of Health Economics and Management (ALTEMS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome , Italy
| | - Rossella Dibidino
- Graduate School of Health Economics and Management (ALTEMS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome , Italy
| | - Lara Gitto
- Dipartimento di Economia, Università degli Studi di Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Andrea Marcellusi
- CEIS EEHTA (Economic Evaluation & HTA), University "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | | | - Americo Cicchetti
- Graduate School of Health Economics and Management (ALTEMS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome , Italy
| |
Collapse
|
71
|
Ladabaum U, Dominitz JA, Kahi C, Schoen RE. Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Gastroenterology 2020; 158:418-432. [PMID: 31394083 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 392] [Impact Index Per Article: 78.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2019] [Revised: 06/06/2019] [Accepted: 06/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Uri Ladabaum
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Charles Kahi
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana; Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Robert E Schoen
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
72
|
Jahn B, Sroczynski G, Bundo M, Mühlberger N, Puntscher S, Todorovic J, Rochau U, Oberaigner W, Koffijberg H, Fischer T, Schiller-Fruehwirth I, Öfner D, Renner F, Jonas M, Hackl M, Ferlitsch M, Siebert U. Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria. BMC Gastroenterol 2019; 19:209. [PMID: 31805871 PMCID: PMC6896501 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-019-1121-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2019] [Accepted: 11/17/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clear evidence on the benefit-harm balance and cost effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is missing. We aim to systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness, harms and cost effectiveness of different organized CRC screening strategies in Austria. METHODS A decision-analytic cohort simulation model for colorectal adenoma and cancer with a lifelong time horizon was developed, calibrated to the Austrian epidemiological setting and validated against observed data. We compared four strategies: 1) No Screening, 2) FIT: annual immunochemical fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, 3) gFOBT: annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, and 4) COL: 10-yearly colonoscopy age 50-70 years. Predicted outcomes included: benefits expressed as life-years gained [LYG], CRC-related deaths avoided and CRC cases avoided; harms as additional complications due to colonoscopy (physical harm) and positive test results (psychological harm); and lifetime costs. Tradeoffs were expressed as incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR, incremental positive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER]. The perspective of the Austrian public health care system was adopted. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS The most effective strategies were FIT and COL. gFOBT was less effective and more costly than FIT. Moving from COL to FIT results in an incremental unintended psychological harm of 16 additional positive test results to gain one life-year. COL was cost saving compared to No Screening. Moving from COL to FIT has an ICER of 15,000 EUR per LYG. CONCLUSIONS Organized CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy is most effective. The choice between these two options depends on the individual preferences and benefit-harm tradeoffs of screening candidates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beate Jahn
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Gaby Sroczynski
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Marvin Bundo
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Nikolai Mühlberger
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Sibylle Puntscher
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Jovan Todorovic
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Ursula Rochau
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Willi Oberaigner
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Timo Fischer
- Main Association of Austrian Social Security Institutions, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Dietmar Öfner
- Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Friedrich Renner
- Faculty of Medicine, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Michael Jonas
- Medical Association of Vorarlberg, Dornbirn, Austria
| | | | - Monika Ferlitsch
- Department of Internal Medicine III; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Quality Assurance Working Group of Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
| | - Uwe Siebert
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment; Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria. .,Division of Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria. .,Center for Health Decision Science; Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. .,Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
73
|
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We set out to evaluate the performance of a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) in an average-risk colonoscopy-controlled colorectal cancer (CRC) screening population. MT-sDNA stool test results were evaluated against fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results for the detection of different lesions, including molecularly defined high-risk adenomas and several other tumor characteristics. METHODS Whole stool samples (n = 1,047) were prospectively collected and subjected to an MT-sDNA test, which tests for KRAS mutations, NDRG4 and BMP3 promoter methylation, and hemoglobin. Results for detecting CRC (n = 7), advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenoma [AA] and advanced serrated polyps; n = 119), and non-AAs (n = 191) were compared with those of FIT alone (thresholds of 50, 75, and 100 hemoglobin/mL). AAs with high risk of progression were defined by the presence of specific DNA copy number events as measured by low-pass whole genome sequencing. RESULTS The MT-sDNA test was more sensitive than FIT alone in detecting advanced precancerous lesions (46% (55/119) vs 27% (32/119), respectively, P < 0.001). Specificities among individuals with nonadvanced or negative findings (controls) were 89% (791/888) and 93% (828/888) for MT-sDNA and FIT testing, respectively. A positive MT-sDNA test was associated with multiple lesions (P = 0.005), larger lesions (P = 0.03), and lesions with tubulovillous architecture (P = 0.04). The sensitivity of the MT-sDNA test or FIT in detecting individuals with high-risk AAs (n = 19) from individuals with low-risk AAs (n = 52) was not significantly different. DISCUSSION In an average-risk screening population, the MT-sDNA test has an increased sensitivity for detecting advanced precancerous lesions compared with FIT alone. AAs with a high risk of progression were not detected with significantly higher sensitivity by MT-sDNA or FIT.
Collapse
|
74
|
Phisalprapa P, Supakankunti S, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand. J Med Econ 2019; 22:1351-1361. [PMID: 31560247 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1674065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs have been reported to be cost-effective in many high-income countries. However, there was no such study in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and budget impact of CRC screening modalities for average-risk persons in Thailand.Methods: A decision tree coupled with a Markov model was used to estimate lifetime costs and health benefits of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy using a societal perspective. The input parameters were obtained from a CRC screening project at a Thai tertiary care hospital, Thai health care costs and databases, and systematic literature review. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2017 US Dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty. Finally, budget impact analysis was conducted.Results: At the Thai ceiling threshold of societal willingness-to-pay of 4,706 USD, the screening colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT, starting at age 50, was cost-effective, as compared to no screening resulting in 15.09 and 15.00 QALYs with the ICERs of 600.20 and 509.84 USD/QALY gained, respectively. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT could prevent 17.9% and 5.7% of early stage cancer and 27.8% and 9.2% of late stage cancer per 100,000 screening over lifetime when compared to no screening, respectively. The colonoscopy screening was cost-effective with the ICER of 646.53 USD/QALY gained when compared to FIT. The probabilities of being cost-effective for the colonoscopy and FIT were 75% and 25%, respectively. Budget impact analysis showed the colonoscopy screening required an 8-times higher budget than FIT.Conclusions: Colonoscopy offers the best value for money of CRC screenings in Thailand. Annual FIT is potentially feasible since it requires less resources. Our findings can be used as part of evidence for informing policy decision making.Key points for decision makersThere was a lack of cost-effective study of colorectal cancer screening programs in low- and middle-income countries.This study evaluated lifetime health outcomes and costs, and the cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening options for average-risk persons in Thailand.Colonoscopy screening every 10 years is cost-effective with high probability of being cost-effective as compared with annual fecal immunochemical test.Screening by annual fecal immunochemical test is more feasible in terms of human resource and budgetary burden.Colorectal screening programs provides an opportunity for early diagnosis and treatments to prevent advance colorectal stages and avoid higher consequent costs.This study contributes a new evidence-based knowledge for Thailand and can be used to support policy decision making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pochamana Phisalprapa
- Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Division of Ambulatory Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
75
|
Keum N, Giovannucci E. Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 16:713-732. [PMID: 31455888 DOI: 10.1038/s41575-019-0189-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1523] [Impact Index Per Article: 253.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/11/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death. Arising through three major pathways, including adenoma-carcinoma sequence, serrated pathway and inflammatory pathway, CRC represents an aetiologically heterogeneous disease according to subtyping by tumour anatomical location or global molecular alterations. Genetic factors such as germline MLH1 and APC mutations have an aetiologic role, predisposing individuals to CRC. Yet, the majority of CRC is sporadic and largely attributable to the constellation of modifiable environmental risk factors characterizing westernization (for example, obesity, physical inactivity, poor diets, alcohol drinking and smoking). As such, the burden of CRC is shifting towards low-income and middle-income countries as they become westernized. Furthermore, the rising incidence of CRC at younger ages (before age 50 years) is an emerging trend. This Review provides a comprehensive summary of CRC epidemiology, with emphasis on modifiable lifestyle and nutritional factors, chemoprevention and screening. Overall, the optimal reduction of CRC incidence and mortality will require concerted efforts to reduce modifiable risk factors, to leverage chemoprevention research and to promote population-wide and targeted screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- NaNa Keum
- Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, Dongguk University, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Edward Giovannucci
- Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. .,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. .,Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. .,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
76
|
Ratushnyak S, Hoogendoorn M, van Baal PHM. Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening: Health and Costs in Life Years Gained. Am J Prev Med 2019; 57:792-799. [PMID: 31753260 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.07.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2019] [Revised: 07/23/2019] [Accepted: 07/24/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening usually account for quality of life losses and healthcare costs owing to cancer but do not account for future costs and quality of life losses related to competing risks. This study aims to demonstrate the impact of medical costs and quality of life losses of other diseases in the life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of U.S. cancer screening. METHODS Cost-effectiveness studies of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the U.S. were identified using a systematic literature review. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the eligible articles were updated by adding lifetime expenditures and health losses per quality-adjusted life year gained because of competing risks. This was accomplished using data on medical spending and quality of life by age and disease from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2011-2015) combined with cause-deleted life tables. The study was conducted in 2018. RESULTS The impact of quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures of competing risks in life years gained incurred owing to screening were the highest for breast cancer and the lowest for cervical cancer. The updates suggest that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are underestimated by $10,300-$13,700 per quality-adjusted life year gained if quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures of competing risks are omitted in economic evaluations. Furthermore, cancer screening programs that were considered cost saving, were found not to be so following the inclusion of medical expenditures of competing risks. CONCLUSIONS Practical difficulties in quantifying quality of life losses and healthcare expenditures owing to competing risks in life years gained can be overcome. Their inclusion can have a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Svetlana Ratushnyak
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Center of Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
| | - Martine Hoogendoorn
- Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter H M van Baal
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
77
|
Liu Y, Xiao G, Zhou JW, Yang JK, Lu L, Bian J, Zhong L, Wei QZ, Zhou QZ, Xue KY, Guo WB, Xia M, Zhou JH, Bao JM, Yang C, Liu CD, Chen MK. Optimal Starting Age and Baseline Level for Repeat Tests: Economic Concerns of PSA Screening for Chinese Men - 10-Year Experience of a Single Center. Urol Int 2019; 104:230-238. [PMID: 31770767 DOI: 10.1159/000503733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the optimal age for the baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and for repeat screening and its economic burden in a single center in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS 35,533 men with PSA screening were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Follow-ups were conducted in 1,586 men with PSA >4 ng/mL, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to investigate the optimal cutoffs. RESULTS ROC analysis indicated that the optimal age for initial PSA screening was 57.5 years (AUC = 0.84), 62.5 years (AUC = 0.902), 60.5 years (AUC = 0.909), and 61.5 years (AUC = 0.890) for individuals with PSA >4 and >10 ng/mL, a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), and clinically significant PCa defined as the focus events, respectively. For Chinese men aged 50-59, 60-69, and >70 years, the initial PSA levels of 1.305 ng/mL (AUC = 0.699), 1.975 ng/mL (AUC = 0.711), and 2.740 ng/mL (AUC = 0.720) might have a PSA velocity >0.75 ng/mL per year during the follow-up. In addition, the total cost amounts to CNY 13,609,260 in these cases, but only 60 of the 35,533 (0.17%) men gained benefit from PSA screening. CONCLUSION In our opinion, the optimal starting age for initial PSA testing was 57.5 years. The necessity for repeat screening should be based on the first PSA level depending on age. A cost--benefit analysis should be included in population-based screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang Liu
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Gang Xiao
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jia-Wei Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jian-Kun Yang
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Li Lu
- Department of Urology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Bian
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lin Zhong
- Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qing-Zhu Wei
- Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qi-Zhao Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kang-Yi Xue
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen-Bing Guo
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming Xia
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun-Hao Zhou
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ji-Ming Bao
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Cheng Yang
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Cun-Dong Liu
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming-Kun Chen
- Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China,
| |
Collapse
|
78
|
Cenin DR, Naber SK, de Weerdt AC, Jenkins MA, Preen DB, Ee HC, O'Leary PC, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2019; 29:10-21. [PMID: 31748260 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-1123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2018] [Revised: 02/20/2019] [Accepted: 10/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening. METHODS Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both. RESULTS At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48. CONCLUSIONS Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk. IMPACT Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dayna R Cenin
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. .,Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,Health Systems and Health Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Steffie K Naber
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Anne C de Weerdt
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark A Jenkins
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - David B Preen
- Centre for Health Services Research, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Hooi C Ee
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Peter C O'Leary
- Health Systems and Health Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,Clinical Biochemistry, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, QE2 Medical Centre, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
79
|
McGill SK, Patel SG. What Is the Hang-Up With Optical Diagnosis of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17:2429-2433. [PMID: 30981005 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2019] [Accepted: 04/05/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah K McGill
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Swati G Patel
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Hospital, Aurora, Colorado
| |
Collapse
|
80
|
Hissong E, Pittman ME. Colorectal carcinoma screening: Established methods and emerging technology. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2019; 57:22-36. [PMID: 31603697 DOI: 10.1080/10408363.2019.1670614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Abstract
Colorectal carcinoma screening programs have shown success in lowering both the incidence and mortality rate of colorectal carcinoma at a population level, in part because this carcinoma is relatively slow growing and has an identifiable premalignant lesion. Still, many patients do not undergo the recommended screening for colorectal carcinoma, and of those who do, a subset may be over- or under-diagnosed by the currently available testing methods. The primary purpose of this article is to review the data regarding currently available colorectal cancer screening modalities, which include fecal occult blood testing, direct colonic visualization, and noninvasive imaging techniques. In addition, readers will be introduced to a variety of biomarkers that may serve as stand-alone or adjunct tests in the future. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the current epidemiologic considerations that public health officials must address as they create population screening guidelines. The data we provide as laboratory physicians and scientists are critical to the construction of appropriate recommendations that ultimately decrease the burden of disease from colorectal carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erika Hissong
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Meredith E Pittman
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
81
|
van de Veerdonk W, Hoeck S, Peeters M, Van Hal G. Towards risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening. Adding risk factors to the fecal immunochemical test: Evidence, evolution and expectations. Prev Med 2019; 126:105746. [PMID: 31173802 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2019] [Revised: 05/28/2019] [Accepted: 06/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
With increasing incidence and mortality, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a growing health problem worldwide. An effective way to address CRC is by screening for fecal (occult) blood by the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, there is room for improvement since precursor lesions and CRC bleed intermittent and can therefore be missed by the FIT (false negatives) or, the detected blood did not result from precursor lesions or CRC (false positives). This review provides the latest evidence on risk prediction models using FIT combined with additional risk factors before colonoscopy, which risk factors to include and if these models will better discriminate between normal findings and CRC compared to the FIT-only. Many prediction models are known for CRC, but compared to the FIT, these are less effective in detecting CRC. The literature search resulted in 645 titles where 11 papers matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Comparing the FIT-only with the risk prediction models for detecting CRC resulted in a significantly increased discrimination for the models. In addition, 2 different risk-stratification categories before colonoscopy were distinguished, namely the 1-model approach which combined risk factors with FIT results in a prediction model while the 2 step approach used risk factors apart from the FIT. Finally, combining FIT with CRC risk factors by means of a model before colonoscopy seems effective regarding discriminative power, however, more research is needed for validation combined with transparent and standardized reporting to improve quality assessment, for which suggestions are reported in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wessel van de Veerdonk
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy (SEHPO), University of Antwerp, Belgium.
| | - Sarah Hoeck
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy (SEHPO), University of Antwerp, Belgium; Centre for Cancer Detection, Bruges, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Marc Peeters
- Department of Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium; Molecular Imaging, Pathology, Radiotherapy & Oncology (MIPRO), University of Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Guido Van Hal
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy (SEHPO), University of Antwerp, Belgium; Centre for Cancer Detection, Bruges, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
82
|
Ran T, Cheng CY, Misselwitz B, Brenner H, Ubels J, Schlander M. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17:1969-1981.e15. [PMID: 30659991 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 94] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2018] [Revised: 01/08/2019] [Accepted: 01/08/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide up-to-date evidence of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by answering 3 research questions. METHODS We searched PubMed, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science), EconLit (American Economic Association) and 3 supplemental databases for original articles published in English from January 2010 through December 2017. All monetary values were converted to US dollars (year 2016). For all research questions, we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs and life years (LYs) and/or quality-adjusted LYs, as well as the incremental costs per LY gained or quality-adjusted LY gained compared with the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy was defined as one that was less costly and equally or more effective than the baseline strategy. The net monetary benefit approach was used to answer research question 2. RESULTS Our review comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America, 4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost effective (even cost saving in most US models) compared to no screening. In addition, colonoscopy every 10 years was less costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in the United States. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic colonography, every 5 or 10 years, was cost effective compared with no screening. CONCLUSIONS In an updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic colonography continued to be cost effective compared to no screening. There were discrepancies among studies from different regions, which could be associated with the model types or model assumptions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Ran
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Chih-Yuan Cheng
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Benjamin Misselwitz
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Hermann Brenner
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jasper Ubels
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
83
|
[The health economics of cancer screening in Germany: Which population-based interventions are cost-effective?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2019; 61:1559-1568. [PMID: 30397723 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-018-2839-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Only a small proportion of German health expenditure is spent on prevention and early detection (screening). The rationale for screening is to identify persons with disease precursors or at the early stage of diseases when they are still asymptomatic, in order to decrease disease-specific morbidity and mortality. In Germany, the economic evidence is one of the evaluation criteria for screening measures, which, among other things, takes into account the additional cost per additional case detected or per case-related event avoided, as well as a cost-benefit balance.For this purpose, cost-effectiveness analyses, which report marginal or incremental cost effectiveness ratios, comparing a measure with its appropriate alternatives, may be a useful tool. Their application requires a defensible benchmark (threshold) for cost effectiveness and a supplementary analysis of the necessary infrastructure and the budgetary impact associated with program implementation. Also (albeit not only) because of the usually long time required to observe the clinical outcomes of a screening measure, the economic evaluation of such programs regularly involves the application of decision analytic simulation models. With regard to cancer screening programs, the available models indicate an excellent cost-benefit ratio for the fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and, similarly, for the use of mammography for breast cancer screening. On the other hand, the economic evidence in favor of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening does not yet appear sufficiently strong, and the currently available health economic evidence does not support the use of PSA testing for prostate screening.
Collapse
|
84
|
Guo F, Chen C, Schöttker B, Holleczek B, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Changes in colorectal cancer screening use after introduction of alternative screening offer in Germany: Prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer 2019; 146:2423-2432. [DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2019] [Revised: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 06/28/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Feng Guo
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
- Medical Faculty Heidelberg University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany
| | - Chen Chen
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
- Medical Faculty Heidelberg University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany
| | - Ben Schöttker
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
- Network Aging Research University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany
| | | | - Michael Hoffmeister
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
| | - Hermann Brenner
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
- Division of Preventive Oncology German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg Germany
| |
Collapse
|
85
|
Onyoh EF, Hsu WF, Chang LC, Lee YC, Wu MS, Chiu HM. The Rise of Colorectal Cancer in Asia: Epidemiology, Screening, and Management. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2019; 21:36. [PMID: 31289917 DOI: 10.1007/s11894-019-0703-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the third most commonly diagnosed cancer globally, and its incidence and mortality rates have been on the rise in Asia. In this paper, we summarize the recent trends and screening challenges of CRC in this region. RECENT FINDINGS In 2018, Asia had the highest proportions of both incident (51.8%) and mortality (52.4%) CRC cases (all genders and ages) per 100,000 population in the world. In addition, there has been a rising trend of this disease across Asia with some regional geographic variations. This rise in CRC can be attributed to westernized dietary lifestyle, increasing population aging, smoking, physical inactivity, and other risk factors. In curbing the rising trend, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have launched nationwide population-based screening programs. CRC screening across this region has been found to be effective and cost-effective compared with no screening at all. The emergence of new therapies has caused a reduction in case fatality; however, these new options have had a limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival due to the great disparity in treatment capacity/resources and screening infrastructures among Asian countries with different degrees of economic development. CRC is still rising in Asia, and implementation of screening is necessary for moderate- to high-incidence countries and construction of treatment capacity is the priority task in low-incidence and low-income countries. Unless countries in Asia implement CRC screening, the incidence and mortality rates of this disease will continue to rise especially with the rapidly rising population growth, economic development, westernized lifestyle, and increasing aging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elias F Onyoh
- Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
- AIDS Care and Prevention Program, Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services, Bamenda, Cameroon
- Taiwanese Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Wen-Feng Hsu
- Taiwanese Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Taipei, Taiwan
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Li-Chun Chang
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Chia Lee
- Taiwanese Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Taipei, Taiwan
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Ming-Shiang Wu
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Han-Mo Chiu
- Taiwanese Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Taipei, Taiwan.
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
86
|
Maroongroge S, Yu JB. Medicare Cancer Screening in the Context of Clinical Guidelines: 2000 to 2012. Am J Clin Oncol 2019; 41:339-347. [PMID: 26886947 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Cancer screening is a ubiquitous and controversial public health issue, particularly in the elderly population. Despite extensive evidence-based guidelines for screening, it is unclear how cancer screening has changed in the Medicare population over time. We characterize trends in cancer screening for the most common cancer types in the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program in the context of conflicting guidelines from 2000 to 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a descriptive analysis of retrospective claims data from the Medicare FFS program based on billing codes. Our data include all claims for Medicare part B beneficiaries who received breast, colorectal (CRC), or prostate cancer screening from 2000 to 2012 based on billing codes. We utilize a Monte Carlo permutation method to detect changes in screening trends. RESULTS In total, 231,416,732 screening tests were analyzed from 2000 to 2012, representing an average of 436.8 tests per 1000 beneficiaries per year. Mammography rates declined 7.4%, with digital mammography extensively replacing film. CRC cancer screening rates declined overall. As a percentage of all CRC screening tests, colonoscopy grew from 32% to 71%. Prostate screening rates increased 16% from 2000 to 2007, and then declined to 7% less than its 2000 rate by 2012. DISCUSSION Both the aggressiveness of screening guidelines and screening rates for the Medicare FFS population peaked and then declined from 2000 to 2012. However, guideline publications did not consistently precede utilization trend shifts. Technology adoption, practical and financial concerns, and patient preferences may have also contributed to the observed trends. Further research should be performed on the impact of multiple, conflicting guidelines in cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Maroongroge
- Yale School of Medicine.,Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, CT
| | - James B Yu
- Yale School of Medicine.,Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, CT.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
87
|
Wei SC, Tsao PN, Wang YT, Lin BR, Wu DC, Tsai WS, Chen JS, Wong JM. Using serum placenta growth factor could improve the sensitivity of colorectal cancer screening in fecal occult blood negative population: A multicenter with independent cohort validation study. Cancer Med 2019; 8:3583-3591. [PMID: 31063258 PMCID: PMC6601572 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2018] [Revised: 04/08/2019] [Accepted: 04/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Screening for CRC using the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is feasible and useful for decreasing disease‐related mortality; however, its sensitivity and compliance are unsatisfactory. Methods This study examined the efficacy of using serum placenta growth factor (PlGF) for a novel CRC screening strategy. To investigate a potential novel screening tool for CRC, we compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the FOBT, serum PlGF, and their combination through an examination of two independent cohorts and validation using the second cohort. All the patients and control group received the colonoscopy and FOBT, the colonoscopy was used as the gold standard for the result. Results Serum PlGF levels were significantly increased in CRC patients (16.8 ± 11.4 pg/mL) compared with controls (12.0 ± 11.2 pg/mL). The predictive model that used the serum PlGF level alone was as effective as the FOBT (AUC: 0.60 vs 0.68, P = 0.891), and it had significantly higher sensitivity than the FOBT (0.81 vs 0.39). In addition, we found serum PlGF level has a good value for predicting CRC patients in those FOBT negative populations. Finally, combining serum PlGF level and the FOBT improved the predictive power and demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity (0.71) and specificity (0.71). This result was confirmed and validated in the second independent cohort. Furthermore, no matter the stages (early/advanced) and the location (distal/proximal) of CRC, the efficacy of serum PlGF and the combined model remained quite stable. Conclusion Serum PlGF level is a potential alternative screening tool for CRC, especially for those who are reluctant to stool‐based screening methods and who were tested as negative FOBT. In addition, combining serum PlGF level and the FOBT could increase the power of CRC screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shu-Chen Wei
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Po-Nien Tsao
- Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Children's Hospital and National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.,The Research Center for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Ting Wang
- Department of Medical Research, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Been-Ren Lin
- Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Deng-Chyang Wu
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Wen-Sy Tsai
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Jinn-Shiun Chen
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan
| | - Jau-Min Wong
- Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
88
|
Reeves P, Doran C, Carey M, Cameron E, Sanson-Fisher R, Macrae F, Hill D. Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer. HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR 2019; 46:798-808. [PMID: 30857431 DOI: 10.1177/1090198119835294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost-utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Reeves
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Mariko Carey
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Emilie Cameron
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Robert Sanson-Fisher
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Finlay Macrae
- University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.,The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - David Hill
- University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.,Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
89
|
Csanádi M, de Kok IM, Heijnsdijk EA, Anttila A, Heinävaara S, Pitter JG, Széles G, Ivanuš U, Priaulx J, Veerus P, Senore C, Koning HJD, Vokó Z. Key indicators of organized cancer screening programs: Results from a Delphi study. J Med Screen 2019; 26:120-126. [PMID: 30621498 DOI: 10.1177/0969141318820362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Objective To maximize benefits and reduce potential harms of organized cancer screening programs in Europe, monitoring, quality assurance, and evaluation of long-term impact are required. We aimed to identify the most important indicators to be collected and reported. The study was designed to establish a consensus within a European-level working group and suggest a manageable list of key indicators. Methods We conducted a Delphi study among policymakers, researchers, and program coordinators who were experts in breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Study participants evaluated the importance of screening indicators on a 5-point Likert scale. Results The top 10 indicators by study participants were interval cancer rate, detection rate, screening attendance, screening coverage, cancer incidence, cause-specific mortality, proportion of persons attending further assessment after a positive screen test result, proportion of persons attending a treatment after diagnosis, invitation coverage, and distribution of cancers by mode of detection. Performance indicators were generally considered more important than outcome indicators. Subgroup analyses by cancer types showed similar results, and only cervical cancer screening experts had slightly different preferences. Subgroup analyses by experts’ roles indicated that policymakers found different indicators important compared with researchers or program coordinators, probably because of their different point of view on screening. Conclusion The implication of our priority ranking is twofold: it serves as an initial guidance for countries that have not yet established a system to collect data, and as a checklist for those where data collection is already established, to assess the comprehensiveness of their system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Inge McM de Kok
- 2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline Am Heijnsdijk
- 2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - Urška Ivanuš
- 4 Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | | | - Piret Veerus
- 6 National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia
| | - Carlo Senore
- 7 CPO Piemonte and University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy
| | - Harry J de Koning
- 2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Zoltán Vokó
- 1 Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
| |
Collapse
|
90
|
Albers P. PSA screening - for whom and when? Asian J Androl 2019; 21:3-5. [PMID: 28879867 PMCID: PMC6337942 DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_37_17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2017] [Accepted: 06/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Reasons for and against screening of prostate cancer have been discussed widely over the last decade. In 2014, the European Randomized Trial for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has reported a relative reduction of the cancer-specific survival of 27% in participants who definitely followed the screening protocol. This relative advantage has proven to be stable from year 7 to year 13 after the beginning of screening. Still, the disadvantages of overdiagnosis and overtreatment are the downsides of a population-based screening approach. But given the overall advantage of screening, a risk-adapted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening using a baseline PSA value at ages 45-50 may significantly reduce the number needed to diagnose maintaining the benefits of screening. PROBASE is a randomized risk-adapted screening trial currently ongoing in Germany to answer this important question.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Albers
- Department of Urology, Düsseldorf University Hospital, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Düsseldorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
91
|
Sekiguchi M, Igarashi A, Sakamoto T, Saito Y, Esaki M, Matsuda T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance using Japanese data. Dig Endosc 2019; 31:40-50. [PMID: 30062760 DOI: 10.1111/den.13250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2018] [Accepted: 07/26/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Recommendations vary on postpolypectomy surveillance, and no consensus has been reached even regarding the necessity of risk stratification based on polyp characteristics for surveillance. We examined an optimal postpolypectomy surveillance program by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS We performed a Markov model analysis using parameters based on Japanese data and evaluated four postpolypectomy surveillance programs with respect to their effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost-effectiveness and required number of colonoscopies. Two were non-risk-stratified programs with 1-year (program 1) and 3-year (program 2) postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy, and the other two were risk-stratified programs. In program 3, surveillance colonoscopy was performed 3, 10 and 10 years after resection of advanced adenomas, low-risk adenomatous polyps, and no polyps, respectively. In program 4, those intervals were shortened to 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. RESULTS Risk-stratified programs (3 and 4) yielded higher QALYs with lower costs than non-risk-stratified programs (1 and 2). Program 4 yielded higher QALYs (23.046) and lower required cost (107,717 JPY) than program 3. The required number of colonoscopies for program 4 was 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 times that for programs 1, 2 and 3, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of program 4 being chosen as the most cost-effective was highest. CONCLUSIONS After polypectomy, risk-stratified colonoscopy surveillance based on the polyp characteristics should be considered. A risk-stratified program with relatively short examination intervals could be effective and cost-effective in Japan, although further investigation and consideration of colonoscopy capacity are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masau Sekiguchi
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.,Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ataru Igarashi
- Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Taku Sakamoto
- Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yutaka Saito
- Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Minoru Esaki
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takahisa Matsuda
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.,Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
92
|
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Prospective studies demonstrate that colorectal cancer screening reduces incidence and mortality, but uptake remains suboptimal. More than a third of age-eligible Americans are not up to date on screening. There are several available screening tests, which may cause primary care providers to ponder which is the best test. This article provides an overview of the available test options and the evidence for each; a summary of major guidelines; and a comparison of the two most widely used tests, colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter S Liang
- Gastroenterology Section, Department of Medicine, VA New York Harbor Health Care System, 423 East 23rd Street, 11N, New York, NY 10010, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
93
|
Yoon JH, Kim D, Kim J, Lee H, Ghim J, Kang BJ, Song P, Suh PG, Ryu SH, Lee TG. NOTUM Is Involved in the Progression of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2018; 15:485-497. [PMID: 30343282 DOI: 10.21873/cgp.20107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2018] [Revised: 09/14/2018] [Accepted: 09/19/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are limitations to current colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific diagnostic methods and therapies. Tumorigenesis proceeds because of interaction between cancer cells and various surrounding cells; discovering new molecular mediators through studies of the CRC secretome is a promising approach for the development of CRC diagnostics and therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comparative secretomic analysis was performed using primary and metastatic human isogenic CRC cells. Proliferation was determined by MTT and thymidine incorporation assay, migration was determined by wound-healing assay (ELISA). The level of palmitoleoyl-protein carboxylesterase (NOTUM) in plasma from patients with CRC was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS NOTUM expression was increased in metastatic cells. Proliferation was suppressed by inhibiting expression of NOTUM. Knockdown of NOTUM genes inhibited proliferation as well as migration, with possible involvement of p38 and c-JUN N-terminal kinase in this process. The result was verified in patients with CRC. CONCLUSION NOTUM may be a new candidate for diagnostics and therapy of CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Hyuk Yoon
- Department of Neural Development and Disease, Korea Brain Research Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Dayea Kim
- New Drug Development Center, Daegu-Gyeongbuk Medical Innovation Foundation, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Jaeyoon Kim
- School of Interdisciplinary Bioscience and Bioengineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, Republic of Korea.,NovaCell Technology, Inc., Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyeongjoo Lee
- NovaCell Technology, Inc., Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Jaewang Ghim
- NovaCell Technology, Inc., Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Byung Jun Kang
- Department of Life Sciences, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Parkyong Song
- Department of Life Sciences, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Pann-Ghill Suh
- School of Life Sciences, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Ho Ryu
- Department of Life Sciences, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, Republic of Korea
| | - Taehoon G Lee
- NovaCell Technology, Inc., Pohang, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
94
|
Altobelli E, Rapacchietta L, Marziliano C, Campagna G, Profeta VF, Fagnano R. Differences in colorectal cancer surveillance epidemiology and screening in the WHO European Region. Oncol Lett 2018; 17:2531-2542. [PMID: 30675315 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2018] [Accepted: 11/15/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) burden and prevention actions in 53 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region (ER). Multiple correspondence analysis was applied to examine the association among the following variables: Measures of occurrence; type of screening programme; existence of cancer registries; data quality and; and gross national income (GNI) level. The study demonstrated clear differences according to GNI: low-middle income (LMI) countries show low mortality rates and unorganized screening programme; upper-middle income (UMI) countries show no test offered, incomplete or absent data mortality, and low quality of the method used to estimate incidence and mortality rates; high income (HI) countries show high mortality rates, test offered (FOBT and colonoscopy), the existence of a national registry, screening population-based, insurance of payment policy, and high quality of the method used to estimate incidence and mortality rates. HI countries reflect a strong interest in epidemiological monitoring and produce accurate indicators of disease occurrence. On the other hand, surveillance strategies need to be improved in UMI and LMI countries: As national vital statistics are unavailable, partial or inaccurate, the coverage and completeness of the mortality data are frequently poor, there is a less efficient general organization. In conclusion, it is important to underline that the resources available (as measured by GNI) appear to be major factors in the Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Epidemiology and Screening in the WHO European Region.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Altobelli
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila I-67100, Italy.,Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Teramo I-64100, Italy
| | | | - Ciro Marziliano
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila I-67100, Italy.,Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Teramo I-64100, Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
95
|
Chen F, Li Z, Zhou H. Identification of prognostic miRNA biomarkers for predicting overall survival of colon adenocarcinoma and bioinformatics analysis: A study based on The Cancer Genome Atlas database. J Cell Biochem 2018; 120:9839-9849. [DOI: 10.1002/jcb.28264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2018] [Accepted: 10/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Fangyao Chen
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics School of Public Health Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center Xi’an Shaanxi China
| | - Zhe Li
- First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an Shaanxi China
| | - Hui Zhou
- Department of Pharmacy, First Affiliated Hospatial of Xi’an Jiaotong University Xi’an Shaanxi China
| |
Collapse
|
96
|
Portillo I, Arana-Arri E, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Bilbao I, Luis Hurtado J, Sarasqueta C, Idigoras I, Bujanda L. Factors related to the participation and detection of lesions in colorectal cancer screening programme-based faecal immunochemical test. Eur J Public Health 2018; 28:1143-1148. [PMID: 29982586 DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cky109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The overall aim of this study was to describe trends in participation rates and detection of lesions in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, during three rounds, using faecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS National registers were used to collect data on invitations for CRC screening in the Basque Country (Spain) from 2009 to 2014. Information about participation, age, gender and lesions in each round were collected. RESULTS A total of 961.533 individuals were included in the analysis; respectively, 584.950, 298.143 and 78.440 in the first, second and third rounds. The average participation rate was 68.4% (66.8, 70.4 and 72.3%, respectively by round; P < 0.001) and the positivity rate was 6.3% (7, 5.5 and 5.4%, respectively by round; P < 0.001). The participation rate increased significantly with age and was found to be higher in women versus men. A total of 15.144 advanced adenomas and 2.131 CRCs were diagnosed, leading to a detection rate of 23.9 and 3.4‰, respectively. Regarding gender, men had the highest rates in all periods and rounds. The detection rate of advanced neoplasia was lower in the regular when compared with irregular paricipants. CONCLUSIONS In a CRC screening, this organization obtained high FIT participation rates. Older participants and women were associated with a higher participation. The detection rate of lesions was higher in men, independent on age and round.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabel Portillo
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Coordination Center, Bilbao, Spain
| | | | | | - Isabel Bilbao
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Coordination Center, Bilbao, Spain
| | | | - Cristina Sarasqueta
- Hospital Universitario Donostia/Instituto Biodonostia, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), San Sebastián, Spain
| | - Isabel Idigoras
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Coordination Center, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Luis Bujanda
- Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Biodonostia, University of Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepaticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), San Sebastián, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
97
|
Mehta SJ, Khan T, Guerra C, Reitz C, McAuliffe T, Volpp KG, Asch DA, Doubeni CA. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113:1848-1854. [PMID: 29925915 PMCID: PMC6768589 DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0151-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2018] [Accepted: 05/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES METHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of those sent initial messaging through the EHR portal (9.5% opt-in versus 37.5% in opt-out). CONCLUSIONS .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shivan J Mehta
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Tanya Khan
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Carmen Guerra
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Catherine Reitz
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Timothy McAuliffe
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Chyke A Doubeni
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
98
|
Peng L, Weigl K, Boakye D, Brenner H. Risk Scores for Predicting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in the Average-risk Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113:1788-1800. [PMID: 30315282 PMCID: PMC6768585 DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0209-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/29/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarize the available evidence on risk scores for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (advanced adenomas and cancer) in average-risk and asymptomatic populations undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 28 March 2018. Studies that developed or validated a risk score to predict the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics including diagnostic performance indicators and assessed risk of bias and applicability in the included studies. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the overall discrimination of risk scores evaluated by more than 1 study. RESULTS A total of 22 studies including 17 original risk scores were identified. Risk scores included a median number of 5 risk factors. Factors most commonly included were age, sex, family history in first-degree relatives, body mass index and smoking. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of risk scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.77 in the individual studies and from 0.61 to 0.70 in the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS Although the majority of available risk scores had relatively weak discriminatory power, they may be of some use for risk stratification in CRC screening. Rather than developing more risk scores based on environmental risk factors, future research should focus on exploring possibilities of enhancing predictive power by combining risk factor data with novel laboratory matters, such as polygenetic risk scores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Le Peng
- 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,2Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Korbinian Weigl
- 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,2Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.,3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Daniel Boakye
- 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,2Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hermann Brenner
- 1Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,4Division of Preventive Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
99
|
Chen ZJ, Batts KP. Postpolypectomy Bleeding Prevention and More Complete Precancerous Colon Polyp Removal With Endoscopic Mucosal Stripping (EMS). Front Med (Lausanne) 2018; 5:312. [PMID: 30467544 PMCID: PMC6236114 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2018] [Accepted: 10/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Aims: Postpolypectomy bleeding and incomplete polyp removal are important complication and quality concerns of colonoscopy for colon cancer prevention. We investigated if endoscopic mucosal stripping (EMS) as a technical modification of traditional cold snare polypectomy to avoid submucosal injury during removal of non-pedunculated colon polyps could prevent postpolypectomy bleeding and facilitate complete polyp removal. Methods: This is an Internal Review Board exemption-granted retrospective analysis of 5,142 colonoscopies with snare polypectomy performed by one of the authors (ZJC) at Minnesota Gastroenterology ambulatory endoscopy centers during a 12-year period divided into pre-EMS era (2005–2012, n = 2,973) and EMS era (2013–2016, n = 2169) with systemic adoption of EMS starting 2013. Change in postpolypectomy bleeding rate before and after EMS adoption and EMS polypectomy completeness were evaluated. Results: Zero postpolypectomy bleeding case was found during EMS era (rate 0%) compared with 10 bleeding cases during pre-EMS era (rate 0.336%). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0055) and remained so after excluding 2 bleeding cases of pedunculated polyps (P = 0.012). All bleeding cases involved hot snare polypectomy. Histological examination of the involved polyps showed substantial submucosal vascular damage in contrast to a remarkable paucity of submucosa in comparable advanced polyps removed using EMS. Both biopsy and follow-up colonoscopy examination of the polypectomy sites confirmed that EMS more completely removed non-pedunculated advanced polyps. Conclusions: EMS polypectomy was effective in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding and facilitated complete polyp removal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kenneth P Batts
- Hospital Pathology Associates, Minneapolis, MN, United States
| |
Collapse
|
100
|
Brenner H, Zwink N, Ludwig L, Hoffmeister M. Should Screening Colonoscopy Be Offered From Age 50? DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL 2018; 114:94-100. [PMID: 28266302 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2016] [Revised: 09/23/2016] [Accepted: 11/16/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The introduction of colonoscopic screening in 2002 for persons aged 55 and older was followed by a marked decline in the incidence of colon cancer in the corresponding age groups in Germany. The prevalence of colorectal neoplasia among persons aged 50 to 54 has remained unknown until now. Expert committees currently recommend colonoscopic screening for persons aged 50 and older. This option has been offered since 2014 by the AOK Baden-Württemberg and by Bosch BKK in the framework of their specialized medical care program. METHODS In April 2014 and 2015, 84 726 insurees aged 50-54 were invited by mail to participate in colonoscopic screening. The utilization and results of colonoscopic screening were studied. A questionnaire about risks was additionally sent to half of the participants, who were selected at random (study registration: DRKS00006268). RESULTS Within one year, 1.9% of persons to whom invitations had been sent took up the offer of colonoscopic screening; these persons included 3.3% of those already enrolled in the specialized medical care program. The 1396 colonoscopies that were performed revealed advanced neoplasia (colon cancer or advanced adenoma) in 6.8% of cases. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia among men aged 50 to 54 was nearly twice as high as that among women in the same age group (8.6% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.0027). It was also higher than the prevalences documented in the German nationwide cancer registry for women aged 55 to 79. The additional sending of a risk questionnaire along with the invitation had no effect on the rate of detection of relevant findings or on the rate of participation in colonoscopic screening. CONCLUSION These findings lend support to the demand that the offer of colonoscopic screening should be extended at least to men aged 50 and above.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hermann Brenner
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum), Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK, Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine Practice, Dornstadt, Germany
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|