ArticlePLoS medicine2018
Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities in Compliance with Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence from Two US National Surveys.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Circulating cell-free DNA for cancer early detection.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2022Review
- Evidenced-Based Screening Strategies for a Positive Family History.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. METHODS AND
findingsTo investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY).
conclusionInvesting in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.
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.