ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2018
Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Modeling and the Use of Surrogate Endpoints: Is This a Valid Approach?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Analysis of the effect of fecal SDC2, ADHFE1 and PPP2R5C gene methylation test for screening colorectal cancer in the Otog Front Banner.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-Target Stool DNA-Based Screening (COLOTECT), FIT, Colonoscopy and No Screening for Colorectal Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- The Role of DNA Methylation in Gastrointestinal Disease: An Expanded Review of Malignant and Nonmalignant Gastrointestinal Diseases.Gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision.Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Combined detection of SDC2/ADHFE1/PPP2R5C methylation in stool DNA for colorectal cancer screening.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Potential prognostic and predictive value of UBE2N, IMPDH1, DYNC1LI1 and HRASLS2 in colorectal cancer stool specimens.Biomedical reports · 2023Article
- The Use of a Non-Invasive Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Modeling Study.Cancers · 2023Article
- Costs and outcomes of colorectal cancer screening program in Isfahan, Iran.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors Treated with Procarbazine and/or Infradiaphragmatic Radiotherapy.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Detecting Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer Using Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath: A Proof-of-Principle Study to Improve Screening.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Feasibility of quantification based on novel evaluation with stool DNA and fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer detection.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- How a faecal immunochemical test screening programme changes annual colorectal cancer incidence rates: an Italian intention-to-screen study.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Decision-analytic modeling for early health technology assessment of medical devices - a scoping review.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2022Article
- Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Review
- Biomarker measurement in non-invasively sampled colorectal mucus as a novel approach to colorectal cancer detection: screening and triage implications.British journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Proteins in stool as biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal adenomas with high risk of progression.The Journal of pathology · 2020Article
- Biomarkers for detecting colorectal cancer non-invasively: DNA, RNA or proteins?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsBiomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals.
methodsWe used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG.
resultsBiennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test.
conclusionsBy using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.
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.