ArticlePLoS medicine2025
The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- A prioritization framework for large-scale cancer screening under resource constraints: three 'not all' principles.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Research advances in early screening for colorectal cancer (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Interpretable machine learning enables early identification of financial risk and resource optimization in colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in public health · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains suboptimal in many countries, reducing its cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate how multistage uptake rates influence the health benefit and cost-effectiveness of various CRC screening strategies in the Chinese population, incorporating both traditional and emerging screening methods. METHODS AND
findingsWe developed a multistate Markov model (CRC-SIM) to evaluate the impact of multistep uptake on CRC screening. A hypothetical cohort of 100,000 individuals aged 40 was simulated and followed until 79 or death. Two-step screening strategies were modeled: initial screening followed by colonoscopy after a positive result. Traditional initial screening methods include: questionnaire-based risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and questionnaire combined with FIT; Non-invasive biomarker-based initial strategies include a hypothetical test meeting the minimum standards of China National Medical Products Administration (NMPAmin), multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and blood-based strategies. All strategies were modeled as one-time screenings, with outcomes projected for CRC cases, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and a cost-effectiveness heatmap was conducted to assess the impact of multistep uptake (modeled in 10% steps) on economic outcomes. All strategies reduced CRC cases, deaths and increased QALYs compared to no screening, with biomarker-based strategies outperforming the traditional methods at the same uptake level (e.g., questionnaire combined with FIT prevented 224 (95% confidence interval (CI) [157, 292]) CRC cases and 151 (95% CI [109, 195]) deaths, whereas NMPAmin prevented 312 (95% CI [257, 360]) cases and 210 (95% CI [175, 241]) deaths at 100% uptake). The cost-effectiveness heatmap indicated that each 10% increase in initial and follow-up colonoscopy uptake improved ICERs in a non-linear pattern. The questionnaire combined with FIT was the most cost-effective strategy (ICER = $2,413 per QALY gained). Non-invasive biomarker-based tests were not cost-effective compared with the combined questionnaire and FIT strategy under current assumptions of test costs and identical uptake rate. Threshold analysis showed that non-invasive biomarker-based screening would become cost-effective if test costs fell below $131.7 or colonoscopy uptake increased to at least 70% for NMPAmin and 50% for blood-based tests and mt-sDNA. Limitations include the assumption of a one-time screening scenario; future iterations of the model and merging evidence in repeated screening will address these limitations.
conclusionImproving screening participation could enhance health benefits and cost-efficiency in CRC screening. Questionnaire-based risk assessment combined with FIT was a cost-effective strategy in China, whereas non-invasive biomarker-based methods require cost reduction and higher uptake to justify adoption. These findings provide evidence for policymakers to optimize CRC screening programs.
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.