Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Colonoscopy Remains an Important Option for Primary Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colonoscopy remains the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. A substantial portion of the screening population value the high sensitivity of colonoscopy for precancerous colorectal lesions of all sizes, which allows it to be performed at 10 year intervals in average-risk persons with negative examinations. Emerging evidence supports the eventual endorsement of 15 year intervals for patients with normal examinations. Considerable evidence supports an impact of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including a randomized controlled trial of colonoscopy vs. no screening, numerous case-control and cohort studies, an impact of fecal blood testing on cancer incidence, and the impact of one randomized controlled trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy on proximal colon cancer incidence. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal precancerous lesions, and continues to evolve with regard to sensitivity for precancerous lesions and the effectiveness and safety of precancerous lesion resection. Gains in detection of precancerous lesions have followed from a robust movement to improve colonoscopy quality, and development of non-device techniques such as patient rotation during withdrawal, water exchange colonoscopy, and double examination of one or more colonic segments. Further, development of devices to improve mucosal exposure during withdrawal (e.g. Endocuff Vision, distal cap attachment, and Computer-Aided Quality), and devices that highlight flat lesions (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy, and Computer-Aided Detection) have created opportunities to achieve very high levels of detection and thereby increase the protective benefits of colonoscopy. Further, colonoscopy resection safety has improved via the widespread use of cold resection for lesions < 10 mm in size, as well as sessile serrated lesions of all sizes. Colonoscopy can be offered to patients as one of multiple options for screening, or as the test of choice for patients with the highest pre-screening probability of cancer and precancerous lesions, or as the first test offered followed by offers of other screening tests if colonoscopy is declined (sequential offers of screening). Sequential offers of screening result in overall adherence to screening similar to offering multiple options, but with a higher fraction of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Given the long-lasting protective effects of colonoscopy and its improving effectiveness and safety, colonoscopy remains a useful option for primary average-risk colorectal cancer screening.

Does Colonoscopy as a First Screening Test Still Make Sense?-Counterpoint

Colonoscopy has been widely regarded as the gold standard for its high diagnostic accuracy and preventive potential. However, its invasive nature, high cost, and suboptimal participation rates limit its utility at the population level. Non-invasive screening tests, notably the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA tests, present promising alternatives that may improve screening participation and reduce barriers to participation. Among these, FIT has demonstrated a consistent advantage in enhancing participation, which subsequently contributes to better long-term outcomes in CRC prevention. FIT-based two-step screening offers several practical advantages, including cost-effectiveness, non-invasiveness, and greater flexibility. Moreover, the quantitative nature of FIT allows for adjustable sensitivity thresholds and the ability of risk stratification, making it adaptable across diverse populations and scenarios. Through serial testing, FIT can increase cumulative detection rates over time. This approach facilitates the identification of high-risk individuals, allowing for more judicious use of colonoscopy resources and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures, especially among low-risk populations. Notably, evidence indicates that participation to FIT-based screening is consistently higher than to colonoscopy, which enhances the detection of early-stage cancers and advanced adenomas in the long run. Given the constraints of limited endoscopic capacity, the aging population, and the recent lowering of the recommended screening age due to the rising incidence of early-onset CRC, FIT emerges as a practical, flexible solution. The role of two-step FIT screening in improving participation and enabling risk-stratified, personalized approaches to CRC prevention is pivotal, advocating for its expanded integration into future screening paradigms.

Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas

Introduction

Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program.

Conclusions

A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

SnoRNA profiling in colorectal cancer and assessment of non-invasive biomarker capacity by ddPCR in fecal samples

Small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) have been identified dysregulated in several pathologies, and these alterations can be detected in tissues and in circulation. The main aim of this study was to analyze the whole snoRNome in advanced colorectal neoplasms and to identify new potential non-invasive snoRNA-based biomarkers in fecal samples by different analytical approaches. SNORA51, SNORD15B, SNORA54, SNORD12B, SNORD12C, SNORD72, SNORD89, and several members of SNORD115 and SNORD116 clusters were consistently deregulated in both tissue sets. After technical validation, SNORA51 and SNORD15B were detected in FIT+ samples. SNORA51 was significantly upregulated in FIT+ samples from CRC patients compared to healthy controls. This upregulation, together with the fecal hemoglobin concentration, was sufficient to identify, among FIT+ individuals, patients with CRC (AUC = 0.86) and individuals with advanced adenomas (AUC = 0.68). These findings portray snoRNAs as an alternative source of candidates for further studies and SNORA51 appears as a potential non-invasive biomarker for CRC detection.

Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a fundamental tool in the prevention and early detection of one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers. Over the years, screening, particularly in those settings where it is well organized, has succeeded in reducing the incidence of colon and rectal cancer and improving the prognosis related to them. Despite considerable advancements in screening technologies and strategies, the effectiveness of CRC screening programs remains less than optimal. This paper examined the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent lack of effectiveness in CRC screening initiatives. Through a critical analysis of current methodologies, technological limitations, patient-related factors, and systemic challenges, we elucidated the complex interplay that hampers the successful reduction of CRC morbidity and mortality rates. While acknowledging the advancements that have improved aspects of screening, we emphasized the necessity of addressing the identified barriers comprehensively. This study aimed to raise awareness of how important CRC screening is in reducing costs for this disease. Screening and early diagnosis are not only important in improving the prognosis of patients with CRC but can lead to an important reduction in the cost of treating a disease that is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Spending more sooner can mean saving money later.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Slovakia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an ideal disease for screening due to known and detectable precursor lesions and slow progression from benign adenoma to invasive cancer. The introduction of organized population-based screening programs reduces the burden of colorectal cancer and increases the quality of the screening process with a more favorable harm to benefit ratio compared to opportunistic screening.

METHODS

The study used the microsimulation screening analysis-colon simulation model for the estimation of the effect of various factors on cancer incidence and mortality. The model simulated the Slovakian population from 2018 to 2050. Study includes the analysis of two screening strategies the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every 2 years and annual FIT. Cost-effectiveness parameters were evaluated comparing each simulated screening scenario with no screening.

RESULTS

Compared to no screening, the biennial FIT would detect 29 600 CRC cases and annual FIT 37 800 CRC cases. Mortality due to CRC showed benefits for both strategies with 17,38% reduction in biennial FIT and 24,67% reduction in annual FIT approach. Both screening programs were more costly as well as more effective compared to no screening. The ICER for biennial FIT strategy was 1776 EUR per 1 QALY and for the annual FIT 3991 EUR per 1 QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis focusing on multiple national CRC screening strategies in Slovakia. Both strategies demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to no screening. However, for optimal population-based programmatic screening strategy, the policymakers should also consider human resources availability, acceptability of screening test among the population or additional resources including the screening funding.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. 2021 US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines and available evidence support routine screening from ages 45 to 75, and individualized consideration of screening ages 76 to 85. USPSTF guidelines recommend annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), annual to every 3-year multitarget stool DNA-FIT, every 5-year sigmoidoscopy, every 10-year sigmoidoscopy with annual FIT, every 5-year computed tomographic colonography, and every 10-year colonoscopy as options for screening. The "best test is the one that gets done."

Advances in tests for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Nonetheless, with early detection of CRC or its precancerous lesions, mortality, and CRC incidence can be reduced. Although colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for CRC screening and diagnosis, its invasive nature, and troublesome bowel preparation deter patient participation. Therefore, there is a need to expand the use of noninvasive or minimally invasive methods to increase patient compliance.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes advances in different methods for CRC screening, including stool bacterial and metagenomic markers, fecal proteins, genetic and epigenetic markers in blood and stools, and imaging modalities. The cost-effectiveness of these methods is also discussed. FIT is more cost-effective compared to virtual colonoscopy, mSEPT9 test, and Multitarget Stool DNA test, while the cost-effectiveness of other noninvasive methods requires further evaluation.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent evidence has well demonstrated the usefulness of gut microbiome and certain fecal bacterial markers in the noninvasive diagnosis of CRC and its precancerous lesions. Many of the fecal biomarkers, from host cells or the gut environment, show better diagnostic sensitivity than FIT. New screening tests based on these fecal biomarkers can be expected to replace FIT with higher cost-effectiveness in the near future.

Multicancer early detection test: Preclinical, translational, and clinical evidence-generation plan and provocative questions

Minimally invasive molecular biomarkers have been applied to the early detection of multiple cancers in large scale case-control and cohort studies. These demonstrations of feasibility herald the potential for permanent transformation of current cancer screening paradigms. This commentary discusses the major opportunities and challenges facing the preclinical development and clinical validation of multicancer early detection test strategies. From a diverse set of early detection research perspectives, the authors recommend specific approaches and highlight important questions for future investigation.

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.

Gender-specific cut-off levels in colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical test: A population-based study of colonoscopy findings and costs

OBJECTIVE

In the population-based Swedish regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program of Stockholm-Gotland using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), gender-specific cut-off levels of fecal hemoglobin are applied, since previous studies have indicated a lower sensitivity of FIT for CRC in women. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the screening costs overall and per detected CRC of this strategy.

METHODS

All individuals aged 60-69 invited to screening in 2015-2017 were included. Cut-off level for positive FIT was 40 µg/g in women and 80 µg/g in men. Those with a positive FIT were referred to colonoscopy. The yield of CRC and screening cost for the study period were assessed and compared to cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders.

RESULTS

Approximately 230,000 individuals were invited. Overall participation rates were 72% in women and 65% in men (p < 0.05). FIT was positive in 4256 individuals (2.7% in both genders). In 3758 colonoscopies, 258 (6.9%) CRCs were detected. The positive predictive value for CRC was significantly higher in men (8.3% vs. 5.8%). In 120 women with CRC, 28 (23%) had FIT < 80 µg/g. Negative colonoscopies were more common in women (24% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). Total costs for the study period were 52,000,000SEK (≈5,200,000€), i.e. 16% higher compared to using cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders, and corresponding to a 3% increment in cost per detected CRC.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of CRC detected in women in the lowest FIT category outweighs the minor reduction in screening costs if the same cut-off level was used as for men.

Noninvasive strategies for colorectal cancer screening: opportunities and limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the United States, only 67% of patients are up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. While colonoscopy is highly sensitive and specific for CRC and precursor lesion detection and removal, it is invasive, expensive and resource heavy. Hence, there is an unfulfilled need for multiple modality CRC screening that can improve current CRC screening rates and may be resource effective strategies when used in conjunction with a colonoscopy program. Our review highlights the complementary, often underutilized, noninvasive CRC screening methods with a focus on performance, risks, benefits, and recent updates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies demonstrate that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is superior to guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests for CRC screening. Studies show superiority of multitarget stool DNA test to FIT in sensitivity, though with concern for decreased specificity in setting of one-time tests. Technical advances continue to improve accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy. There are ongoing studies to characterize often difficult-to-detect high-risk lesions in computed tomography colonography. Septin 9 continues to have suboptimal accuracy for CRC screening, but has been shown to be associated with more advanced, invasive CRC stages.

SUMMARY

There are ongoing advances in noninvasive screening modalities for CRC; these should be considered as alternatives to colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Screening is one of the ways, in which cases and deaths of CRC can be prevented. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different CRC screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

METHODS

The economic studies of CRC screening in general populations (average risk), aged 50 years and above were reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the studies in five databases: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The disagreements between reviewers were resolved through the authors' consensus. The main outcome measures in this systematic review were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus no-screening and then in comparison with other screening techniques. The ICER is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, all CRC screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was $PPP -16265/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (the negative ICERs were between purchasing power parity in US dollar ($PPP) -16265/QALY to $PPP -1988/QALY, whereas the positive ICERs were between $PPP 1257/QALY to $PPP 55987/QALY). For studies comparing various screening techniques, there was great heterogeneity in terms of the structures of the analyses, leading to diverse conclusions about their incremental cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

All CRC screening techniques were cost-effective, compared with the no-screening methods. The cost-effectiveness of the various screening techniques mainly was dependent on the context-specific parameters and highly affected by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In order to make the studies comparable, it is important to adopt a reference-based methodology for economic evaluation studies.