ArticleEndoscopy international open2014
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Germany: current endoscopic and fecal testing strategies versus plasma methylated Septin 9 DNA.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of blood diagnostic markers in colorectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Guideline
- Evaluation of a plasma cell-free DNA methylation test for colorectal cancer diagnosis: a multicenter clinical study.BMC medicine · 2024Trial
- Health economic evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention in Germany: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Risk-based guidance for choosing fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a modeling study.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Advancing Colorectal Cancer Detection With Blood-Based Tests: Qualitative Study and Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Population Preferences.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Cost-Utility Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening According to the Initiating Age of National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Would initiating colorectal cancer screening from age of 45 be cost-effective in Germany? An individual-level simulation analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Disease markers · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a Multi-Gene Methylation Blood-Test for the Detection of Colorectal Cancer.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of epigenetic methylation biomarkers for the detection of colorectal cancer using droplet digital PCR.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Current challenges and best practices for cell-free long RNA biomarker discovery.Biomarker research · 2022Review
- Treatment Costs of Colorectal Cancer by Sex and Age: Population-Based Study on Health Insurance Data from Germany.Cancers · 2022Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Biomarkers for detecting colorectal cancer non-invasively: DNA, RNA or proteins?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsColorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies in Germany include guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) starting at age 50 and a switch to colonoscopy at age 55 or continued gFOBT testing, but screening utilization is limited. Blood-based biomarkers, such as methylated Septin 9 DNA ( (m) SEPT9), may improve screening rates. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of current and emerging CRC screening strategies in Germany.
methodsUsing a validated Markov model, we compared annual gFOBT for ages 50 through 54 followed by biennial testing until age 75 (FOBT) or by colonoscopy at ages 55 and 65 (FOBT/COLO 55,65), substitution of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for gFOBT (FIT, FIT/COLO 55,65), and annual or biennial plasma (m) SEPT9 testing. We also considered persons who utilize only colonoscopy and varied age at colonoscopy utilization.
resultsThe current strategies were more effective and less costly than no screening. FIT was more effective and less costly than (m) SEPT9 testing. FIT/COLO 55,65 cost €12 200 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in comparison with FIT. (m) SEPT9-based screening was cost-effective in comparison with no screening but was dominated by other cost-saving strategies. Differential screening utilization and adherence greatly affected incremental results between strategies. In probabilistic analyses, FIT was preferred in 49 % and FIT/COLO 55,65 in 47 % of iterations.
conclusionCurrently available CRC screening strategies in Germany, including hybrid fecal testing/colonoscopy, are likely to be cost-saving. Current strategies appear superior to (m) SEPT9-based screening. The impact of blood-based biomarkers is likely to depend on utilization and adherence as much as on test performance characteristics and cost.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.