Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27305518›Full record

ArticleJAMA2016

Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Amy B Knudsen, Ann G Zauber, Carolyn M Rutter, Steffie K Naber, V Paul Doria-Rose, Chester Pabiniak, Colden Johanson, Sara E Fischer, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Karen M Kuntz

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03843957 (Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC), which is not on this map. Cited by 247 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
247citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT03843957 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC: a Mobile Health System for Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2019 to 2023Enrolled77,145ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Cancer, Rectum Cancer, Colon CancerArmsmPATH-CRC, mPATH-Checkin, "high touch" Implementation strategy, "low touch" Implementation Strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

247 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Validation of Colorectal Cancer Models on Long-term Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Modeling in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Assessing External and Predictive Validity of MISCAN-Colon Microsimulation Model Using NORCCAP Trial Results.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

187 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amy B KnudsenInstitute for Technology Assessment, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Carolyn M RutterRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Steffie K NaberDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
V Paul Doria-RoseDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Chester PabiniakGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Colden JohansonInstitute for Technology Assessment, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts8Currently with Optum, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sara E FischerDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Karen M KuntzDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Comparative Modeling of Colorectal Cancer: Informing Health Policies and Prioritizing Future ResearchU01CA199335 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M, LANSDORP-VOGELAAR, IRIS · 2015 to 2019
$5.5M
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
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30CA008748NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152959NCI NIH HHS U01CA152959NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199335
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.

objectiveTo inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsComparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds.

resultsThe screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesModels, TheoreticalPreventive Health ServicesAdenomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCohort StudiesColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDNAEarly Detection of CancerFecesHumansDNA

Identifiers

PMID27305518
PMCPMC5493310

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.