Cargando…
Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer
BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain. METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5066737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26828588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29865 |
_version_ | 1782460537588678656 |
---|---|
author | Young, Graeme P. Senore, Carlo Mandel, Jack S. Allison, James E. Atkin, Wendy S. Benamouzig, Robert Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. Silva, Mahinda De Guittet, Lydia Halloran, Stephen P. Haug, Ulrike Hoff, Geir Itzkowitz, Steven H. Leja, Marcis Levin, Bernard Meijer, Gerrit A. O'Morain, Colm A. Parry, Susan Rabeneck, Linda Rozen, Paul Saito, Hiroshi Schoen, Robert E. Seaman, Helen E. Steele, Robert J. C. Sung, Joseph J. Y. Winawer, Sidney J. |
author_facet | Young, Graeme P. Senore, Carlo Mandel, Jack S. Allison, James E. Atkin, Wendy S. Benamouzig, Robert Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. Silva, Mahinda De Guittet, Lydia Halloran, Stephen P. Haug, Ulrike Hoff, Geir Itzkowitz, Steven H. Leja, Marcis Levin, Bernard Meijer, Gerrit A. O'Morain, Colm A. Parry, Susan Rabeneck, Linda Rozen, Paul Saito, Hiroshi Schoen, Robert E. Seaman, Helen E. Steele, Robert J. C. Sung, Joseph J. Y. Winawer, Sidney J. |
author_sort | Young, Graeme P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain. METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests. RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention‐to‐screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer‐specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac‐based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4‐phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention‐to‐screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true‐positive and false‐positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion. CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826–39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5066737 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50667372016-11-01 Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer Young, Graeme P. Senore, Carlo Mandel, Jack S. Allison, James E. Atkin, Wendy S. Benamouzig, Robert Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. Silva, Mahinda De Guittet, Lydia Halloran, Stephen P. Haug, Ulrike Hoff, Geir Itzkowitz, Steven H. Leja, Marcis Levin, Bernard Meijer, Gerrit A. O'Morain, Colm A. Parry, Susan Rabeneck, Linda Rozen, Paul Saito, Hiroshi Schoen, Robert E. Seaman, Helen E. Steele, Robert J. C. Sung, Joseph J. Y. Winawer, Sidney J. Cancer Commentary BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain. METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests. RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention‐to‐screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer‐specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac‐based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4‐phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention‐to‐screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true‐positive and false‐positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion. CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826–39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-02-01 2016-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5066737/ /pubmed/26828588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29865 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Young, Graeme P. Senore, Carlo Mandel, Jack S. Allison, James E. Atkin, Wendy S. Benamouzig, Robert Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. Silva, Mahinda De Guittet, Lydia Halloran, Stephen P. Haug, Ulrike Hoff, Geir Itzkowitz, Steven H. Leja, Marcis Levin, Bernard Meijer, Gerrit A. O'Morain, Colm A. Parry, Susan Rabeneck, Linda Rozen, Paul Saito, Hiroshi Schoen, Robert E. Seaman, Helen E. Steele, Robert J. C. Sung, Joseph J. Y. Winawer, Sidney J. Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title | Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title_full | Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title_fullStr | Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title_short | Recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
title_sort | recommendations for a step‐wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5066737/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26828588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29865 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT younggraemep recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT senorecarlo recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT mandeljacks recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT allisonjamese recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT atkinwendys recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT benamouzigrobert recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT bossuytpatrickmm recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT silvamahindade recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT guittetlydia recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT halloranstephenp recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT haugulrike recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT hoffgeir recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT itzkowitzstevenh recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT lejamarcis recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT levinbernard recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT meijergerrita recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT omoraincolma recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT parrysusan recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT rabenecklinda recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT rozenpaul recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT saitohiroshi recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT schoenroberte recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT seamanhelene recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT steelerobertjc recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT sungjosephjy recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer AT winawersidneyj recommendationsforastepwisecomparativeapproachtotheevaluationofnewscreeningtestsforcolorectalcancer |