Trial reportMilitary Medical Research2025
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial and modeling analysis.
Trial report in Military Medical Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Long-term effectiveness of a two-step colorectal cancer screening strategy and risk of colorectal cancer after polypectomy.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk-adapted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has the potential to balance effectiveness with resource demands, yet evidence comparing it with established methods remains limited. This study aims to compare outcomes of risk-adapted CRC screening with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) strategies.
methodsWe adopted a hybrid methodology combining real-world data from a population-based CRC screening randomized controlled trial (TARGET-C) with projections from a validated Markov-based microsimulation model (MIMIC-CRC). The TARGET-C trial enrolled 19,582 participants aged 50-74 years from 6 centers in China, randomized in a 1:2:2 ratio into 3 groups. After applying the exclusion criteria, the final analysis included 3883 participants in the one-time colonoscopy group, 7793 in the annual FIT group, and 7697 in the risk-adapted screening group. In the latter group, screening allocation was determined by a composite risk score incorporating age, sex, family history of CRC, smoking status, and body mass index, with high-risk participants referred for colonoscopy and low-risk participants for FIT. The primary outcome was detection rates of advanced neoplasm (CRC and advanced adenoma) over 4 rounds. Secondary outcomes included screening participation, colonoscopy demand, and costs from a societal perspective. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were modeled over 15 years using MIMIC-CRC.
resultsAcross 4 rounds, overall participation rates (attending at least one screening round) were 42.3% (colonoscopy), 99.8% (FIT), and 92.5% (risk-adapted). Detection rates of advanced neoplasms were 2.8%, 2.3%, and 2.6%, respectively, with no significant differences (P > 0.05). Colonoscopies needed to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 15.4, 7.9, and 9.3, respectively. From a societal perspective, the cost for detecting 1 advanced neoplasm was 15,341, 21,754, and 24,300 Chinese Yuan, respectively. Over 15 years, risk-adapted screening reduced incidence by 16.7% and mortality by 21.5% compared with no screening, slightly less effective than colonoscopy (24.6% and 24.8%, respectively). Under observed real-world adherence, colonoscopy was the most cost-effective; under perfect full adherence, risk-adapted screening was the most cost-effective.
conclusionsIn this population-based CRC screening trial, risk-adapted screening, colonoscopy, and FIT demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but differed in participation rates, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness. Risk-adapted screening could serve as a complementary approach to established strategies, particularly when health resources are limited.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800015506).
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.