Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26253304›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology2015

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

Frank van Hees, Sameer D Saini, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Sandeep Vijan, Reinier G S Meester, Harry J de Koning, Ann G Zauber, Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02027545 (Promoting Veteran-Centered Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT02027545 nacompletednot on this map

Promoting Veteran-Centered Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2015 to 2018Enrolled436ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsDecision Aid, Provider Education, Performance Measure Modification, Simple Informational Booklet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Surveillance colonoscopy findings in asymptomatic participants over 75 years of age.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Screening History and Comorbidities Help Refine Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Article
  17. Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Frank van HeesDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sameer D SainiVeteran Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sandeep VijanVeteran Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reinier G S MeesterDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vanballegooijen@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
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
HSRD VA CDA 09-213NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152959NCI NIH HHS U01-CA152959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsColorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors.

methodsWe used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

resultsLess intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old.

conclusionsThe current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAgingColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsComorbidityCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineColon Cancer ScreeningIndividualized CareMISCANTumor

Identifiers

PMID26253304
PMCPMC4631390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.