ArticleJAMA2021
Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
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.
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
174 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 306 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Platinum Agents Following Curative Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Benefits of colorectal cancer screening using fecal immunochemical testing with varying positivity thresholds by age and sex.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Patient Navigation to Improve Colonoscopy Completion After an Abnormal Stool Test Result : A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Dissemination of colorectal cancer information among Hispanic patients and their social network.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.Gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- A screening-threshold-oriented framework reveals threshold-adjacent redistribution of global colorectal cancer burden: an analysis of GBD 2023.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Patterns of Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of Health and Economic Impact of Missed Screening Opportunities.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- The Association of FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening with Earlier Disease Detection: The Romanian Experience.Cancers · 2026Article
- Emerging trends in the global burden of colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Divergent Prognostic Impact of Histopathological Features and Combined Hematological-Biochemical Indices in Rectal Versus Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Study.World journal of oncology · 2026Article
- Should Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing Replace Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Comparative Modeling Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- CRC-SPIN version 3.0: an updated policy model for colorectal cancer screening that includes the serrated pathway.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Health Benefits of Screening for Co-occurring Alcohol-, Substance-, and Mood-related Conditions for At-Risk Populations: A Mathematical Modeling Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Yield of Fecal Immunochemical Test for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasms in Adults Under 50: A Single-Center Cohort in Taiwan.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Navigating false-positive outcomes after stool-based colorectal cancer screening tests: a scoping review.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Personalized prevention for all: changing how we approach the future of prevention.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.