ArticleCancer2017
Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer.
Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Non-invasive colorectal cancer screening methods: focusing on diagnostic genetic and epigenetic markers.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Review
- Estimated health outcomes of breast cancer screening in the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program by race/ethnicity.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Clinical Molecular Immunohistochemistry Mismatch Repair Mutations in Lynch Syndrome in Patients Under 50 Years: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Cost effectiveness analysis of three colorectal cancer screening modalities in Kuwait.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch Syndrome and polygenic risk scores to inform colorectal cancer screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Tracking Cancer: Exploring Heart Rate Variability Patterns by Cancer Location and Progression.Cancers · 2024Article
- The aggregate value of cancer screenings in the United States: full potential value and value considering adherence.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Translatability Analysis of National Institutes of Health-Funded Biomedical Research That Applies Artificial Intelligence.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Psychological distance: a qualitative study of screening barriers among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Therapeutic Effect and Mechanism of Bushen-Jianpi-Jiedu Decoction Combined with Chemotherapeutic Drugs on Postoperative Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- National Trends in Colorectal Cancer Incidence Among Older and Younger Adults in Canada.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Changing from two- to one-operator colonoscopy insertion technique is feasible with similar quality outcomes.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2019Article
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
Abstract
backgroundScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes.
methodsA Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective.
resultsColonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy.
conclusionsImprovement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Indexed as
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.