Impact of screening and follow‐up colonoscopy adenoma sensitivity on colorectal cancer screening outcomes in the CRC‐AIM microsimulation model

BACKGROUND: Real‐world data for patients with positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening stool‐tests demonstrate that adenoma detection rates are lower when endoscopists are blinded to the stool‐test results. This suggests adenoma sensitivity may be lower for screening colonoscopy than for follow‐up...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fisher, Deborah A., Saoud, Leila, Hassmiller Lich, Kristen, Fendrick, A. Mark, Ozbay, A. Burak, Borah, Bijan J., Matney, Michael, Parton, Marcus, Limburg, Paul J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Cancer Prevention
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33314646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3662
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Real‐world data for patients with positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening stool‐tests demonstrate that adenoma detection rates are lower when endoscopists are blinded to the stool‐test results. This suggests adenoma sensitivity may be lower for screening colonoscopy than for follow‐up to a known positive stool‐based test. Previous CRC microsimulation models assume identical sensitivities between screening and follow‐up colonoscopies after positive stool‐tests. The Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC‐AIM) was used to explore the impact on screening outcomes when assuming different adenoma sensitivity between screening and combined follow‐up/surveillance colonoscopies. METHODS: Modeled screening strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt‐sDNA), or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from 50 to 75 years. Outcomes were reported per 1000 individuals without diagnosed CRC at age 40. Base‐case adenoma sensitivity values were identical for screening and follow‐up/surveillance colonoscopies. Ranges of adenoma sensitivity values for colonoscopy performance were developed using different slopes of odds ratio adjustments and were designated as small, medium, or large impact scenarios. RESULTS: As the differences in adenoma sensitivity for screening versus follow‐up/surveillance colonoscopies became greater, life‐years gained (LYG) and reductions in CRC‐related incidence and mortality versus no screening increased for mt‐sDNA and FIT and decreased for screening colonoscopy. The LYG relative to screening colonoscopy reached >90% with FIT in the base‐case scenario and with mt‐sDNA in a “medium impact” scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming identical adenoma sensitivities for screening and follow‐up/surveillance colonoscopies underestimate the potential benefits of stool‐based screening strategies.

Ejemplares similares