ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024
Impact of the serrated pathway on the simulated comparative effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening tests.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Discrete-Event Simulation Modeling Framework for Cancer Interventions and Population Health in R (DESCIPHR): An Open-Source Pipeline.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Clinics.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancers (CRCs) arise from adenomas, which can produce fecal occult blood and can be detected endoscopically, or sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), which rarely bleed and may be more challenging to detect. Models informing CRC screening policy should reflect both pathways, accounting for uncertainty.
methodsNovel decision-analytic model of the adenoma and serrated pathways for CRC (ANSER) to compare current and emerging screening strategies, accounting for differential test sensitivities for adenomas and SSLs, and uncertainty. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, stool-DNA/FIT (sDNA-FIT) every 1-3 years, or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) every year from age 45 to 75 years. Outcomes included CRC cases and deaths, cost-effectiveness (cost/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), and burden-benefit (colonoscopies/life-year gained), with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
resultsANSER predicted 62.5 (95% UI = 58.8-66.3) lifetime CRC cases and 24.1 (95% UI = 22.5-25.7) CRC deaths/1000 45-year-olds without screening, and 78%-87% CRC mortality reductions with screening. The tests' outcome distributions overlapped for QALYs gained but separated for required colonoscopies and costs. All strategies cost less than $100 000/QALY gained vs no screening. Colonoscopy was the most effective and cost-effective, costing $9300/life-year gained (95% UI = $500-$21 900) vs FIT. sDNA-FIT cost more than $500 000/QALY gained vs FIT. As more CRCs arose from SSLs, colonoscopy remained preferred based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness, but cost-effectiveness improved for a next-generation sDNA-FIT.
conclusionWhen the serrated pathway is considered, modeling suggests that colonoscopy is cost-effective vs FIT. In contrast, modeling suggests that sDNA-FIT is not cost-effective vs FIT despite its greater sensitivity for SSLs, even if a substantial minority of CRCs arise from SSLs.
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.