Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26080339›Full record

ArticleJAMA2015

Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

Reinier G S Meester, Chyke A Doubeni, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Christopher D Jensen, Miriam P van der Meulen, Theodore R Levin, Virginia P Quinn, Joanne E Schottinger, Ann G Zauber, Douglas A Corley and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Reinier G S Meesterthe Netherlands Institute of Health Sciences, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam2Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Chyke A DoubeniDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia4Department of Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia5The Leonard Davis Center for Health.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Christopher D JensenKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Miriam P van der MeulenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Theodore R LevinKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Virginia P QuinnResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Joanne E SchottingerResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Douglas A CorleyKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
CRN4: Cancer Research Resources & Collaboration in Integrated Health Care SystemsU24CA171524 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2012 to 2016
$16.0M
Optimizing the use of colonoscopy for CRC screening in a large community-basedU54CA163262 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN, DOUBENI, CHYKE ABADAMA · 2011 to 2017
$9.6M
Modeling Effective Health Policies for Colorectal CancerU01CA152959 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M, LANSDORP-VOGELAAR, IRIS · 2010 to 2014
$5.4M
Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy in Reducing Deaths from Colorectal CancerU01CA151736 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI DOUBENI, CHYKE ABADAMA · 2011 to 2015
$4.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U01 CA151736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152959NCI NIH HHS U24 CA171524NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceColonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs.

objectiveTo estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsMicrosimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010. EXPOSURES: Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

resultsIn simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerHealth Care CostsHumansMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRisk

Identifiers

PMID26080339
PMCPMC4631392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.