Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039685›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2021

The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.

Chloe Thomas, Olena Mandrik, Catherine L Saunders, Deborah Thompson, Sophie Whyte, Simon Griffin, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Can polygenic risk scores contribute to cost-effective cancer screening? A systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Chloe ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. c.thomas@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8704-3262
Olena MandrikSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Catherine L SaundersThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3127-3218
Deborah ThompsonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1465-5799
Sophie WhyteSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Simon GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2157-4797
Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464Cancer Research UK A21464Cancer Research UK C1287/A16563Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-based screening for colorectal cancer is an effective and cost-effective way of reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Many genetic and phenotypic risk factors for colorectal cancer have been identified, leading to development of colorectal cancer risk scores with varying discrimination. However, these are not currently used by population screening programs. We performed an economic analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness, clinical outcomes, and resource impact of using risk-stratification based on phenotypic and genetic risk, taking a UK National Health Service perspective. Biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), starting at an age determined through risk-assessment at age 40, was compared with FIT screening starting at a fixed age for all individuals. Compared with inviting everyone from age 60, using a risk score with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.721 to determine FIT screening start age, produces 418 QALYs, costs £247,000, and results in 218 fewer colorectal cancer cases and 156 fewer colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 people, with similar FIT screening invites. There is 96% probability that risk-stratification is cost-effective, with net monetary benefit (based on £20,000 per QALY threshold) estimated at £8.1 million per 100,000 people. The maximum that could be spent on risk-assessment and still be cost-effective is £114 per person. Lower benefits are produced with lower discrimination risk scores, lower mean screening start age, or higher FIT thresholds. Risk-stratified screening benefits men more than women. Using risk to determine FIT screening start age could improve the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening without using significant additional screening resources. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Colorectal cancer screening is essential for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, but implementation is often limited by resource constraints. This work shows that risk-stratification using genetic and phenotypic risk could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programs, without using substantially more screening resources than are currently available.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansIncidenceLife StyleMaleMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID34039685
PMCPMC7611464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.