Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003219›Full record

ArticleJAMA2021

Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Amy B Knudsen, Carolyn M Rutter, Elisabeth F P Peterse, Anna P Lietz, Claudia L Seguin, Reinier G S Meester, Leslie A Perdue, Jennifer S Lin, Rebecca L Siegel, V Paul Doria-Rose and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
174citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
20.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

174 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 306 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Non-gastrointestinal symptom burden following colorectal cancer treatment-a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Emerging trends in the global burden of colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Early-onset colorectal cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, and implications for clinical practice.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy B KnudsenInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Carolyn M RutterRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Elisabeth F P PeterseDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anna P LietzInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Claudia L SeguinInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Reinier G S MeesterDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Leslie A PerdueKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center and Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center and Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Rebecca L SiegelAmerican Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
V Paul Doria-RoseDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eric J FeuerDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Karen M KuntzDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USNational Cancer Institute · USAmerican Cancer Society · USHarvard University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRAND Corporation · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Comparative Modeling of Effective Policies for Colorectal Cancer ControlU01CA253913 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI RUTTER, CAROLYN M, ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
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
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199335NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253913
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Objective: To provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer. Exposures: Screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies. Results: Estimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerModels, StatisticalOccult BloodAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedRiskSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID34003219
PMCPMC8409520
OpenAlexW3162019711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.