ArticleJAMA network open2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Clinics.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- Article
- The Best Screening Test Is the One That Gets Followed-Up On.Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening among African American patients of community health centers in North-Central Florida and stakeholder perspectives: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others misunderstand stool testing for colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
- The triple effect of colorectal cancer screening: reducing deaths, government spending, and mortality disparities.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Comparative benefits, burdens, and harms of emerging blood-based tests for colorectal cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Equitable colorectal cancer screening implementation framework via a modified Delphi Consensus for Romanian healthcare.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- From Detection to Delay: Real-World Gaps in Post-CologuardJournal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Changes in Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities Among Insured Individuals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of a Rideshare Program to Facilitate Colonoscopy Completion.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Calculating willingness-to-pay with discrete cost and random coefficients in discrete choice experiments.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Review
- Response to McElroy and Everett.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- A Novel Blood-Based Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer Using Raman Spectroscopy.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.