Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820690›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Clinics.

Pedro Nascimento de Lima, Laura Matrajt, Gloria Coronado, Anne L Escaron, Carolyn M Rutter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. From Detection to Delay: Real-World Gaps in Post-CologuardJournal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Response to McElroy and Everett.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Pedro Nascimento de LimaEngineering and Applied Sciences Department, RAND, Arlington, Virginia.
Laura MatrajtFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Division, Seattle, Washington.
Gloria CoronadoUniversity of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.
Anne L EscaronInstitute for Health Equity, AltaMed Health Services Corporation, Los Angeles, California.
Carolyn M RutterFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research and Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Effective Policies for Colorectal Cancer ControlU01CA253913 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI RUTTER, CAROLYN M, ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
Assessing the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on disparities in cancer screening and follow-up (RESTORE)R01CA265020 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI CORONADO, GLORIA D. · 2021 to 2025
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA265020NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253913
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Several noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer screening are available, but their effectiveness in settings with low adherence to screening and follow-up colonoscopy is not well documented. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of and outcomes associated with noninvasive colorectal cancer screening strategies, including new blood-based tests, in a population with low adherence to screening and ongoing surveillance colonoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The validated microsimulation model used for the decision analytical modeling study projected screening outcomes from 2025 to 2124 for a simulated cohort of 10 million individuals aged 50 years in 2025 and representative of a predominantly Hispanic or Latino patient population served by a Federally Qualified Health Center in Southern California. The simulated population had low adherence to first-step noninvasive testing (45%), second-step follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal noninvasive test result (40%), and ongoing surveillance colonoscopy among patients with high-risk findings at follow-up colonoscopy (80%). Exposures: Colorectal cancer screening strategies included no screening, an annual or biennial fecal immunochemical test, a triennial multitarget stool DNA test, and a triennial blood-based test. Using a blood-based test was assumed to increase first-step adherence by 17.5 percentage points. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained relative to no screening, costs, and net monetary benefit assuming a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Under realistic adherence assumptions, a program of annual fecal immunochemical testing was the most effective and cost-effective strategy, yielding 121 life-years gained per 1000 screened individuals and a net monetary benefit of $5883 per person. Triennial blood testing was the least effective, yielding 23 life-years gained per 1000, and was not cost-effective, with a negative net monetary benefit. Annual fecal immunochemical testing with 45% first-step adherence and 80% adherence to follow-up and surveillance colonoscopy yielded greater benefit than triennial blood testing with perfect adherence (88 vs 77 life-years gained per 1000). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that in a federally qualified health care setting, prioritizing the convenience of blood tests over less costly and more effective existing stool-based tests could result in higher costs and worse population-level outcomes. Novel screening modalities should be carefully evaluated for performance in community settings before widespread adoption.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAgedCaliforniaColonoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID39820690
PMCPMC11739995

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.