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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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