Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25908920›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2015

Using the Cancer Risk Management Model to evaluate colorectal cancer screening options for Canada.

A J Coldman, N Phillips, J Brisson, W Flanagan, M Wolfson, C Nadeau, N Fitzgerald, A B Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  2. Evaluating Semi-Markov Processes and Other Epidemiological Time-to-Event Models by Computing Disease Sojourn Density as Partial Differential Equations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Shooting for the Moon: Can We Cut Cancer Mortality in Canada By 50% By 2050?Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A J ColdmanBC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, BC.
N PhillipsBC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, BC.
J BrissonInstitute de Santé Publique, Quebec City, QC.
W FlanaganStatistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.
M WolfsonUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
C NadeauStatistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.
N FitzgeraldCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON.
A B MillerDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Funding

Tumor Tissue CoreP30CA012197 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Ruben A. Mesa · 1985 to 2026
$55.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA012197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral screening methods for colorectal cancer (crc) are available, and some have been shown by randomized trials to be effective. In the present study, we used a well-developed population health simulation model to compare the risks and benefits of a variety of screening scenarios. Tests considered were the fecal occult blood test (fobt), the fecal immunochemical test (fit), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Outcomes considered included years of life gained, crc cases and deaths prevented, and direct health system costs.

methodsA natural history model of crc was implemented and calibrated to specified targets within the framework of the Cancer Risk Management Model (crmm) from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The crmm-crc permits users to enter their own parameter values or to use program-specified base values. For each of 23 screening scenarios, we used the crmm-crc to run 10 million replicate simulations.

resultsUsing base parameter values and some user-specified values in the crmm-crc, and comparing our screening scenarios with no screening, all screening scenarios were found to reduce the incidence of and mortality from crc. The fobt was the least effective test; it was not associated with lower net cost. Colonoscopy screening was the most effective test; it had net costs comparable to those for several other strategies considered, but required more than 3 times the colonoscopy resources needed by other approaches. After colonoscopy, strategies based on the fit were predicted to be the most effective. In sensitivity analyses performed for the fobt and fit screening strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness. The fit was more cost-effective at the 50 ng/mL threshold than at the 100 ng/mL threshold.

conclusionsThe crmm-crc provides a sophisticated and flexible environment in which to evaluate crc control options. All screening scenarios considered in this study effectively reduced crc mortality, although sensitivity analyses demonstrated some uncertainty in the magnitude of the improvements. Where possible, local data should be used to reduce uncertainty in the parameters.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancercostsoutcomesscreening

Identifiers

PMID25908920
PMCPMC4399623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.