ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2024
Characteristics of a cost-effective blood test for colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Price Variation in Economic Analyses for Cancer Screenings: A Rapid Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- A Multiomic Liquid Biopsy for the Earlier Detection of Colorectal Cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation of Fecal Occult Blood Test and Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Indonesia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others misunderstand stool testing for colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
- System-Wide Implementation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Value-Based Care Setting.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Observational
- The triple effect of colorectal cancer screening: reducing deaths, government spending, and mortality disparities.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Comprehensive review of publicly accessible databases for gastrointestinal cancer and future challenges in database construction.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Comparative benefits, burdens, and harms of emerging blood-based tests for colorectal cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Consensus Molecular Subtypes (CMS) Classification: a progress towards Subtype-Driven treatments in colorectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Stress-Testing US Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Decennial Colonoscopy from Age 45 is Robust to Natural History Uncertainty and Colonoscopy Sensitivity Assumptions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Advances in colorectal cancer screening and detection: a narrative review on biomarkers, imaging and preventive strategies.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Review
- Estimating the Burden of False Positives and Implementation Costs From Adding Multiple Single Cancer Tests or a Single Multi-Cancer Test to Standard-Of-Care Screening.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Clinics.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Incorporating social determinants of health into agent-based models of HIV transmission: methodological challenges and future directions.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlood-based biomarker tests can potentially change the landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We characterize the conditions under which blood test screening would be as effective and cost-effective as annual fecal immunochemical testing or decennial colonoscopy.
methodsWe used the 3 Cancer Information and Surveillance Modeling Network-Colon models to compare scenarios of no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing, decennial colonoscopy, and a blood test meeting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) coverage criteria (74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity). We varied the sensitivity to detect CRC (74%-92%), advanced adenomas (10%-50%), screening interval (1-3 years), and test cost ($25-$500). Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained from screening and costs for a US average-risk cohort of individuals aged 45 years.
resultsAnnual fecal immunochemical testing yielded 125-163 QALY gained per 1000 at a cost of $3811-$5384 per person, whereas colonoscopy yielded 132-177 QALY gained at a cost of $5375-$7031 per person. A blood test with 92% CRC sensitivity and 50% advanced adenoma sensitivity yielded 117-162 QALY gained if used every 3 years and 133-173 QALY gained if used every year but would not be cost-effective if priced above $125 per test. If used every 3 years, a $500 blood test only meeting CMS coverage criteria yielded 83-116 QALY gained at a cost of $8559-$9413 per person.
conclusionBlood tests that only meet CMS coverage requirements should not be recommended to patients who would otherwise undergo screening by colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing because of lower benefit. Blood tests need higher advanced adenoma sensitivity (above 40%) and lower costs (below $125) to be cost-effective.
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.