ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
The Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-Target Stool DNA-Based Screening (COLOTECT), FIT, Colonoscopy and No Screening for Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. 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.
- Clinicopathological features and risk stratification for lymph node metastasis in early-stage colorectal cancer (from intramucosal carcinoma to SM2): a large-scale retrospective study based on a Chinese population.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Potential of Exosomes in Colorectal Cancer: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy, multi-cancer early detection, and artificial intelligence: new frontiers in cancer screening from a technological and immunological perspective.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAround 1.9 million new cases and 1 million deaths worldwide were attributed to colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2020.
aimsThe aims of this study are to assess the cost-effectiveness of a multi-target stool DNA-based screening strategy, COLOTECT, compared to faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), colonoscopy, and no screening in the Asian population to inform more choices for policymakers in colorectal cancer screening. METHOD AND
resultsWe assume that 100,000 persons aged 50 undergo annual FIT, annual COLOTECT multi-target testing, or colonoscopies every 10 years until age 75. The data used in this study was retrieved from different sources including the Hong Kong Cancer Registry and previously published studies on the population aged 50 to 75 years old between 2010 and 2023. This study accessed the most cost-effective screening strategy available. If a positive result of FIT or COLOTECT were observed, the participants would undergo a colonoscopy. The participants who used the colonoscopy as the main screening method conducted colonoscopies every 3 years. The Markov models were utilized to compare the outcomes from different strategies including life-years saved, years of life lost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (primary outcome). The highest ICER was observed in colonoscopy (USD 160808), followed by FIT (USD 108952), and COLOTECT (USD 82206). A higher detection rate of CRC (COLOTECT: 39.3% vs. FIT: 4.5%), more CRC cases prevented (1272 vs. 146), and life-years saved (2295 vs. 337) were observed in the COLOTECT strategy than in FIT. Additionally, a lower total cost per life-year saved of COLOTECT (USD 180097) was observed than colonoscopy (USD 238356), which identified the more affordable and cost-saving COLOTECT strategy.
conclusionThis study highlighted the better performance of COLOTECT than FIT in detecting CRC. Additionally, given its lower cost and higher acceptance, the COLOTECT strategy might be more cost-effective than colonoscopy for massive CRC screening.
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.