Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39247209›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024

Evaluation of long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of nation-wide colorectal cancer screening strategies in China in 2020-2060: a modelling analysis.

Bin Lu, Jiahui Luo, Yike Yan, Yuhan Zhang, Chenyu Luo, Na Li, Yueyang Zhou, Dong Wu, Min Dai, Hongda Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Bin LuDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Jiahui LuoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yike YanDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yuhan ZhangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Chenyu LuoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Na LiDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yueyang ZhouCenter for Prevention and Early Intervention, National Infrastructures for Translational Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Dong WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Min DaiDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Hongda ChenCenter for Prevention and Early Intervention, National Infrastructures for Translational Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence on the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies in China remains limited. This modelling study aims to address this issue for various CRC screening strategies in China between 2020 and 2060. Methods: Using a previously developed microsimulation model (MIMIC-CRC) with Chinese epidemiological data, we evaluated four CRC screening strategies targeting population aged 45-74 years: no screening, colonoscopy every 10 years, biennial faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and a roll-out FIT screening strategy. Screening coverage (invitation) rates from 5% to 100% were analysed. Single-cohort analysis of 100,000 individuals was conducted to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of each strategy. A multiple-cohort analysis of 100,000 people aged 40+ over 2020-2060 was conducted to project nation-wide long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness. Findings: In single-cohort analysis, all strategies yielded reductions in CRC incidence and mortality compared to no screening, with colonoscopy outperforming FIT-based strategies at the same invitation rates. In multiple-cohort analysis, among people over 40 years of age in China over 2020-2060, compared to no screening, at invitation rate of 5%, screening by colonoscopy, biennial FIT and roll-out FIT-based approach were estimated to avert 1.2, 0.4, and 0.3 million incident CRCs and 0.2, 0.1, and 0.1 million CRC-related deaths, respectively, compared to no screening (25.4 million incident CRCs and 4.4 million CRC-related deaths), and this preventive effect enlarged as the screening coverage rate increased. At full coverage, colonoscopy achieved the largest reductions (38.2% lower incidence and 43.2% lower mortality) but required the most resources. Biennial FIT and roll-out FIT-based approach screening was slightly less effective but had significant reduced colonoscopy needs (reduction of 83.8% and 85.2%, respectively) and overall cost (reduction of 23.4% and 37.8%, respectively) compared to colonoscopy screening. Interpretation: Nation-wide implementation of screening would be effective in reducing the burden of CRC in China. Biennial FIT and roll-out FIT-based screening strategies could prevent incident CRC cases and CRC-related deaths with considerably fewer resources than colonoscopy screening. Efforts should be made to increase the screening coverage in China. Funding: Chinese Academy of Medical Science Innovation Fund for Medical Science (2022-I2M-1-0031); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82173606; 82273726); Beijing Nova Program of Science and Technology (20230484397).

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerCost-effectivenessEffectivenessMicrosimulationScreening

Identifiers

PMID39247209
PMCPMC11380381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.