Rescreening of Persons With a Negative Colonoscopy Result: Results From a Microsimulation Model

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.81). 11/2012; 157(9):611-20. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-9-201211060-00005
Source: PubMed


Persons with a negative result on screening colonoscopy are recommended to repeat the procedure in 10 years.
To assess the effectiveness and costs of colonoscopy versus other rescreening strategies after an initial negative colonoscopy result.
Microsimulation model.
Literature and data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.
Persons aged 50 years who had no adenomas or cancer detected on screening colonoscopy.
No further screening or rescreening starting at age 60 years with colonoscopy every 10 years, annual highly sensitive guaiac fecal occult blood testing (HSFOBT), annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or computed tomographic colonography (CTC) every 5 years.
Lifetime cases of colorectal cancer, life expectancy, and lifetime costs per 1000 persons, assuming either perfect or imperfect adherence.
Rescreening with any method substantially reduced the risk for colorectal cancer compared with no further screening (range, 7.7 to 12.6 lifetime cases per 1000 persons [perfect adherence] and 17.7 to 20.9 lifetime cases per 1000 persons [imperfect adherence] vs. 31.3 lifetime cases per 1000 persons with no further screening). In both adherence scenarios, the differences in life-years across rescreening strategies were small (range, 30 893 to 30 902 life-years per 1000 persons [perfect adherence] vs. 30 865 to 30 869 life-years per 1000 persons [imperfect adherence]). Rescreening with HSFOBT, FIT, or CTC had fewer complications and was less costly than continuing colonoscopy.
Results were sensitive to test-specific adherence rates.
Data on adherence to rescreening were limited.
Compared with the currently recommended strategy of continuing colonoscopy every 10 years after an initial negative examination, rescreening at age 60 years with annual HSFOBT, annual FIT, or CTC every 5 years provides approximately the same benefit in life-years with fewer complications at a lower cost. Therefore, it is reasonable to use other methods to rescreen persons with negative colonoscopy results.
National Cancer Institute.

1 Follower
20 Reads
  • Gastrointestinal endoscopy 03/2013; 77(3):335-50. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.002 · 5.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This pilot study aimed to determine the feasibility of serum neurotensin/IL-8 values being used as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. Fifty-six patients and 15 healthy controls were assigned to seven groups according to their disease entity based on theater records and histology report. Blood samples for neurotensin and IL-8 were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. There were no differences in the clinical and biochemical parameters of patients and controls. Group (p = 0.003) and age (p = 0.059, marginally significant) were independent predictors of neurotensin plasma values. Neurotensin (p = 0.004) and IL-8 (p = 0.029) differed between healthy and colorectal cancer patients. Neurotensin values differentiate the control group from all remaining groups. The value of plasma neurotensin ≤54.47 pg/ml at enrollment selected by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated a sensitivity of 77 %, specificity of 90 %, and an estimate of area under ROC curve (accuracy) of 85 % in predicting colorectal cancer. At enrollment, the value of plasma IL-8 ≥8.83 pg/ml had a sensitivity of 85 %, specificity 80 %, and an estimate of area under ROC curve (accuracy) of 81 % in predicting colorectal cancer. IL-8 should be used complementary to neurotensin due to its lower specificity. None of the colorectal cancer patients displayed a combination of high neurotensin and low IL-8 values (beyond cutoffs). It seems that a blood neurotensin/IL-8 system may be used as a screening tool for colorectal cancer, but much has to be done before it is validated in larger-scale prospective studies.
    Tumor Biology 03/2014; 35(6). DOI:10.1007/s13277-014-1794-3 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To identify when, from the standpoint of relative risk, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based screening may be effective in patients with a known or suspected genetic predisposition to pancreatic cancer. Materials and methods: The authors developed a Markov model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The model was calibrated to National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data and informed by the literature. A hypothetical screening strategy was evaluated in which all population individuals underwent one-time MR imaging screening at age 50 years. Screening outcomes for individuals with an average risk for PDAC ("base case") were compared with those for individuals at an increased risk to assess for differential benefits in populations with a known or suspected genetic predisposition. Effects of varying key inputs, including MR imaging performance, surgical mortality, and screening age, were evaluated with a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS In the base case, screening resulted in a small number of cancer deaths averted (39 of 100 000 men, 38 of 100 000 women) and a net decrease in life expectancy (-3 days for men, -4 days for women), which was driven by unnecessary pancreatic surgeries associated with false-positive results. Life expectancy gains were achieved if an individual's risk for PDAC exceeded 2.4 (men) or 2.7 (women) times that of the general population. When relative risk increased further, for example to 30 times that of the general population, averted cancer deaths and life expectancy gains increased substantially (1219 of 100 000 men, life expectancy gain: 65 days; 1204 of 100 000 women, life expectancy gain: 71 days). In addition, results were sensitive to MR imaging specificity and the surgical mortality rate. Conclusion: Although PDAC screening with MR imaging for the entire population is not effective, individuals with even modestly increased risk may benefit.
    Radiology 11/2014; 275(1):141282. DOI:10.1148/radiol.14141282 · 6.87 Impact Factor
Show more


20 Reads
Available from