ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2021
Impact of Patient Adherence to Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Colonoscopy Following a Positive Test on Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Best Screening Test Is the One That Gets Followed-Up On.Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Comparison of Benefit-to-Burden Ratios for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests in the U.S.: A Decision Analytical Modeling Approach.AJPM focus · 2026Article
- A screening model for advanced colorectal neoplasia based on tumor markers and inflammatory indices: a retrospective study with an online risk calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Real-World Adherence and Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Multitarget Stool DNA Screening in a Regional Healthcare System.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Optimizing Colonoscopy Capacity to Maximize Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Evaluating benefit-to-burden ratios of the established and emerging colorectal cancer screening strategies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Utilization of molecular genetic approaches for colorectal cancer screening.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Clinical Validation of a Cell-Free DNA Fragmentome Assay for Augmentation of Lung Cancer Early Detection.Cancer discovery · 2024Article
- Cancer Screening in the United States During the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Performance of different colorectal cancer screening strategies: a long-term passive follow-up population-based screening program in Beijing, China.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Inappropriate Multi-Target Stool DNA Use for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Risks, Compliance, and Outcomes.Cureus · 2023Article
- Life-years gained resulting from screening colonoscopy compared with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal screening test.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Impact of the Sessile Serrated Polyp Pathway on Predicted Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.Gastro hep advances · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer-screening models commonly assume 100% adherence, which is inconsistent with real-world experience. The influence of adherence to initial stool-based screening [fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA)] and follow-up colonoscopy (after a positive stool test) on colorectal cancer outcomes was modeled using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model. Average-risk individuals without diagnosed colorectal cancer at age 40 undergoing annual FIT or triennial mt-sDNA screening from ages 50 to 75 were simulated. Primary analyses incorporated published mt-sDNA (71%) or FIT (43%) screening adherence, with follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranging from 40% to 100%. Secondary analyses simulated 100% adherence for stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up (S1), published adherence for stool-based screening with 100% adherence to colonoscopy follow-up (S2), and published adherence for both stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up after positive mt-sDNA (73%) or FIT (47%; S3). Outcomes were life-years gained (LYG) and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality reductions (per 1,000 individuals) versus no screening. Adherence to colonoscopy follow-up after FIT had to be 4%-13% higher than mt-sDNA to reach equivalent LYG. The theoretical S1 favored FIT versus mt-sDNA (LYG 316 vs. 297; colorectal cancer incidence reduction 68% vs. 64%; colorectal cancer mortality reduction 76% vs. 72%). The more realistic S2 and S3 favored mt-sDNA versus FIT (S2: LYG 284 vs. 245, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 61% vs. 50%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 69% vs. 59%; S3: LYG 203 vs. 113, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 43% vs. 23%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 49% vs. 27%, respectively). Incorporating realistic adherence rates for colorectal cancer screening influences modeled outcomes and should be considered when assessing comparative effectiveness. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Adherence rates for initial colorectal cancer screening by FIT or mt-sDNA and for colonoscopy follow-up of a positive initial test influence the comparative effectiveness of these screening strategies. Using adherence rates based on published data for stool-based testing and colonoscopy follow-up yielded superior outcomes with an mt-sDNA versus FIT-screening strategy.
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.