IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0244431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the impact of differential adherence on the comparative effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Piscitello
  • Leila Saoud
  • A Mark Fendrick
  • Bijan J Borah
  • Kristen Hassmiller Lich
  • Michael Matney
  • A Burak Ozbay
  • Marcus Parton
  • Paul J Limburg

Abstract

Background: Real-world adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies is imperfect. The CRC-AIM microsimulation model was used to estimate the impact of imperfect adherence on the relative benefits and burdens of guideline-endorsed, stool-based screening strategies. Methods: Predicted outcomes of multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (HSgFOBT) were simulated for 40-year-olds free of diagnosed CRC. For robustness, imperfect adherence was incorporated in multiple ways and with extensive sensitivity analysis. Analysis 1 assumed adherence from 0%-100%, in 10% increments. Analysis 2 longitudinally applied real-world first-round differential adherence rates (base-case imperfect rates = 40% annual FIT vs 34% annual HSgFOBT vs 70% triennial mt-sDNA). Analysis 3 randomly assigned individuals to receive 1, 5, or 9 lifetime (9 = 100% adherence) mt-sDNA tests and 1, 5, or 9 to 26 (26 = 100% adherence) FIT tests. Outcomes are reported per 1000 individuals compared with no screening. Results: Each screening strategy decreased CRC incidence and mortality versus no screening. In individuals screened between ages 50–75 and adherence ranging from 10%a-100%, the life-years gained (LYG) for triennial mt-sDNA ranged from 133.1–300.0, for annual FIT from 96.3–318.1, and for annual HSgFOBT from 99.8–320.6. At base-case imperfect adherence rates, mt-sDNA resulted in 19.1% more LYG versus FIT, 25.4% more LYG versus HSgFOBT, and generally had preferable efficiency ratios while offering the most LYG. Completion of at least 21 FIT tests is needed to reach approximately the same LYG achieved with 9 mt-sDNA tests. Conclusions: Adherence assumptions affect the conclusions of CRC screening microsimulations that are used to inform CRC screening guidelines. LYG from FIT and HSgFOBT are more sensitive to changes in adherence assumptions than mt-sDNA because they require more tests be completed for equivalent benefit. At imperfect adherence rates, mt-sDNA provides more LYG than FIT or HSgFOBT at an acceptable tradeoff in screening burden.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Piscitello & Leila Saoud & A Mark Fendrick & Bijan J Borah & Kristen Hassmiller Lich & Michael Matney & A Burak Ozbay & Marcus Parton & Paul J Limburg, 2020. "Estimating the impact of differential adherence on the comparative effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244431
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244431&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0244431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn M. Rutter & Amy B. Knudsen & Tracey L. Marsh & V. Paul Doria-Rose & Eric Johnson & Chester Pabiniak & Karen M. Kuntz & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Ann G. Zauber & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, 2016. "Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 604-614, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.