Comparison of Simulated Outcomes Between Stool- and Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

A Mark Fendrick; Vahab Vahdat; Jing Voon Chen; David Lieberman; Paul J Limburg; A Burak Ozbay; John B Kisiel

doi:10.1089/pop.2023.0037

. 2023 Aug 14;26(4):239–245. doi: 10.1089/pop.2023.0037

Comparison of Simulated Outcomes Between Stool- and Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

A Mark Fendrick ^1,^✉, Vahab Vahdat ², Jing Voon Chen ², David Lieberman ³, Paul J Limburg ², A Burak Ozbay ², John B Kisiel ⁴

PMCID: PMC10457617 PMID: 37466476

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend covering blood-based tests meeting proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Outcomes were compared between currently available stool-based screening tests and a hypothetical blood-based test meeting CMS minimum thresholds. Using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM), outcomes were simulated for average-risk individuals screened between ages 45 and 75 years with triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Per CMS guidance, blood-based CRC screening was modeled triennially, with 74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity. Although not specified by CMS, adenoma sensitivity was set between 10% and 20%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for stool-based tests. Adherence was set at (1) 100%, (2) 30%–70%, in 10% increments, and (3) real-world rates for stool-based tests (mt-sDNA = 65.6%; FIT = 42.6%; FOBT = 34.4%). Assuming perfect adherence, a blood-based test produced ≥19 lower life-years gained (LYG) than stool-based strategies. At the best-case scenario for blood-based tests (100% adherence and 20% adenoma sensitivity), mt-sDNA at real-world adherence achieved more LYG (287.2 vs. 297.1, respectively) with 14% fewer colonoscopies. At 100% blood-based test adherence and real-world mt-sDNA and FIT adherence, the blood-based test would require advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to reach the LYG of mt-sDNA (297.1) and ∼15% sensitivity to reach the LYG of FIT (258.9). This model suggests that blood-based tests with CMS minimally acceptable CRC sensitivity and low advanced adenoma sensitivity will frequently yield inferior outcomes to stool-based testing across a wide range of adherence assumptions.

Keywords: colorectal neoplasms/prevention and control, liquid biopsy, biomarker, adenoma, Medicare

Introduction

In 2021, there were an estimated 150,000 new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States and an estimated 53,000 CRC-related deaths.¹ Fortunately, CRC screening has been demonstrated to effectively reduce disease-related incidence and mortality through earlier detection.^2,3 Broadly endorsed CRC screening options include relatively invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, that can identify and remove some colorectal neoplasia during the initial examination.^4–6 Colonoscopies have high sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas and CRC, but require bowel cleansing and often use sedation.

Alternatively, noninvasive stool-based screening tests are taken at home without the pretest preparation or risks associated with colonoscopy (eg, colon perforation). Stool-based tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), detect markers released from both CRCs and precancerous adenomas⁷ and are recommended for average-risk screening by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), American Cancer Society, and other major guidelines.^4–6 All positive noninvasive stool-based screening tests should be followed up with colonoscopy.^4–6 Blood-based biomarker tests represent a newer category of noninvasive CRC screening, but they are currently not recommended in major guidelines as first-line options.^4–6

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend covering blood-based biomarker tests with proposed minimum performance (sensitivity and specificity) thresholds for CRC screening test every 3 years for average-risk, asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries of ages 50–85 years.⁸ The proposed minimum performance thresholds are 74% for CRC sensitivity and 90% for CRC specificity compared with colonoscopy. These thresholds are based on the minimum sensitivity and specificity for FIT and mt-sDNA.⁸ Interestingly, the recently issued CMS guidance does not stipulate performance thresholds for the detection of precancerous adenomas, a critical outcome measure that substantially impacts the effectiveness of screening modalities.⁸

To provide further clarity regarding the potential clinical utility of blood-based CRC screening under a number of potential clinical scenarios, microsimulation modeling analyses were conducted to predict life-years gained (LYG), CRC incidence, and CRC mortality outcomes resulting from blood-based CRC screening based on CMS minimum thresholds. These outcomes were then compared with available stool-based screening options (FIT, FOBT, and mt-sDNA).

Methods

Microsimulation model

Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) is a microsimulation model that incorporates assumptions for the known and unknown natural history of CRC and for CRC screening test parameters to simulate the impact of screening on CRC outcomes (Fig. 1).^9,10 CRC-AIM has been previously validated to US CRC incidence and mortality presented in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and cross-model validated against CRC Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models (ie, CRC-SPIN, SimCRC, and MISCAN)^11–14 that have been widely used for USPSTF^15,16 and American Cancer Society⁵ guideline recommendations.

FIG. 1. — CRC-AIM microsimulation. AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CRC, colorectal cancer.

The natural history component of the model follows the course of CRC using an adenoma–carcinoma sequence. The assumptions related to the natural history used in CRC-AIM have been previously described and include adenoma generation, adenoma growth, transition chance to preclinical CRC, CRC growth to become clinically detectable, and CRC death or survival, as shown in Figure 1.¹⁰

The CRC screening test component of CRC-AIM incorporates sensitivity and specificity of each modality, the frequency each test is used, adherence to the assigned screening frequency, and age interval for screening.⁹ It is assumed that when a screening test is positive, either any identified precancerous adenomas are removed to prevent the progression to preclinical CRC or that detection of early stage CRC is potentially more treatable, whereby mortality is reduced (Fig. 1).

Screening test performance assumptions

CRC-AIM was used to simulate outcomes of blood- and stool-based tests (FIT, FOBT, and mt-sDNA) for average-risk individuals free of diagnosed CRC at age 40 years and screened between ages 45 and 75 years. The age range of 45–75 years was selected per USPSTF findings that CRC screening among such individuals provides substantial or moderate net benefit.⁴ Per CMS proposed criteria, CRC sensitivity and specificity for a blood-based test were set at 74% and 90%, respectively.⁸ Since CMS did not propose thresholds for adenoma sensitivity for a blood-based test, adenoma sensitivity was varied in 5 scenarios ranging from 10% to 20% (Table 1).

Table 1.

Screening Test Assumptions

Screening test, scenario	Sensitivity			Specificity	Screening interval
	Adenoma		CRC
	<10 mm	≥10 mm	CRC
mt-sDNA	15%¹⁹	42%^19,a	94%¹⁹	91%¹⁹	3 Years
FIT	7%¹⁹	22%^19,a	74%¹⁹	97%¹⁹	1 Year
FOBT	5%¹⁸	11%¹⁸	68%¹⁸	97%¹⁸	1 Year
Blood, S1	10%	10%	74%⁸	90%⁸	3 Years
Blood, S2	12.5%	15%	74%	90%	3 Years
Blood, S3	15%	15%	74%	90%	3 Years
Blood, S4	15%	20%	74%	90%	3 Years
Blood, S5	20%	20%	74%	90%	3 Years

Open in a new tab

^{^a}

Sensitivity for persons with advanced adenomas (ie, ≥10 mm or adenomas with advanced history); sensitivity was not reported for the subset of persons with ≥10 mm adenomas separately from advanced adenomas.

CRC, colorectal cancer; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; mt-sDNA, multitarget stool DNA.

The lower sensitivity of 10% is the false-positive rate of the CMS minimum threshold for specificity, and the maximum sensitivity of 20% is based on preliminary clinical results for a blood-based test.¹⁷ In 2 of the scenarios, adenoma sensitivity was assumed to be different for nonadvanced (<10 mm) and advanced (≥10 mm) adenomas (Table 1). There is currently not enough evidence for blood-based test adenoma sensitivity based on adenoma size, so it was assumed that the adenoma detection for a nonadvanced adenoma was half that of a large adenoma after excluding an accidental finding. Adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity for each stool-based test were those used by the USPSTF in their 2021 updated recommendations (Table 1).^18,19

Screening test strategy assumptions

FIT and FOBT were recommended to be completed every year. The blood-based test and mt-sDNA were recommended to be completed every 3 years. For the primary analysis, adherence to screening intervals was assumed to be 100%. For secondary analysis, adherence was examined between 30% and 70%, in 10% increments, or at reported real-world adherence rates of 65.6% for mt-sDNA,²⁰ 42.6% for FIT,²¹ and 34.4% for FOBT.²¹ Adherence to follow-up colonoscopies after a positive stool- or blood-based test was assumed to be 100%.

Outcomes

Estimated outcomes were LYG and reductions in CRC incidence and mortality compared with no screening. Outcomes were per 1000 individuals.

Sensitivity analysis

To determine the threshold for adenoma sensitivity that would match outcomes with the stool-based tests, sensitivity analyses with >20% nonadvanced (<10 mm) and advanced (≥10 mm) adenoma sensitivities for the blood-based test were conducted.

Data availability

Data were generated by the authors and are available on request. To promote full transparency and credibility of the CRC-AIM model, its formulas and parameters are available on a public repository (https://github.com/CRCAIM/CRC-AIM-Public).

Results

In the scenario where a blood-based test meets CMS minimum performance thresholds on sensitivity and specificity and with perfect adherence assumed for all tests, a blood-based test produced ≥19 lower estimated LYG than currently available stool-based tests (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S1). When the best-case scenario for blood-based tests was modeled (100% adherence and 20% nonadvanced and advanced adenoma sensitivity) and compared with real-world adherence rates for stool-based tests, mt-sDNA achieved more LYG (287.2 vs 297.1, respectively; Fig. 2) with 14% fewer total colonoscopies (1601.9 vs 1404.5, respectively; Supplementary Table S1).

FIG. 2. — LYG by adherence rate per 1000 patients over lifetime horizon. AAS, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm) sensitivity; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FOBT, fecal occult blood test; LYG, life-years gained; mt-sDNA, multi-target stool DNA; nAAS, nonadvanced adenoma (<10 mm) sensitivity; RW, real world.

High adherence (>60%) and high nonadvanced and advanced adenoma sensitivity (both 20%) are needed for the blood-based test to exceed the LYG of FIT at real-world adherence (Fig. 2) with 40% higher total colonoscopies (1409.7 vs 1004.9, respectively; Supplementary Table S1). Using real-world adherence for FOBT, the blood-based test produces more LYG in most of the adherence and sensitivity scenarios (Fig. 2).

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine what threshold of adenoma sensitivity would be required by a blood-based test to reach the same outcomes as mt-sDNA. At 100% adherence for the blood-based test and real-world adherence for mt-sDNA (65.6%), the blood-based test would require nonadvanced adenoma sensitivity of 20% and advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to reach the LYG of mt-sDNA (297.1; Supplementary Table S2). At real-world adherence for FIT (42.6%), ∼15% sensitivity for both nonadvanced and advanced adenomas would be required for the blood-based test to reach the LYG of FIT (258.9; Supplementary Table S1).

Figure 3 illustrates the tradeoffs in LYG produced between a blood-based test and each of the 3 stool-based screening tests across a broad range of adherence rates. In a scenario wherein a blood-based test has 10% sensitivity for both nonadvanced (<10 mm) and advanced (≥10 mm) adenomas, mt-sDNA had at least 21 higher LYG (Fig. 3A) and at least 11% and 7% higher reductions in absolute CRC incidence and mortality per 1000 individuals, respectively, at all explored adherence rates (Supplementary Figs. S1A and S2A).

When the blood-based test adenoma sensitivity for both small and advanced adenomas was increased to 20%, mt-sDNA and FIT had higher LYG (Fig. 3B), and mt-sDNA had higher reductions in incidence and mortality, at identical adherence (Supplementary Figs. S1B and S2B).

Discussion

The results of this microsimulation model indicate that estimated LYG are inferior with a blood-based test that meets CMS minimum performance standards and interval testing recommendations as compared with currently endorsed stool-based screening strategies when adherence to all tests is assumed to be 100%. Using real-world adherence rates for stool-based tests, mt-sDNA produced more LYG and fewer colonoscopies than the blood-based test with 100% adherence and best-case adenoma sensitivity. To exceed the LYG of FIT at real-world adherence, a blood-based test needed high adenoma detection and adherence. In contrast, the blood-based test produced more LYG than FOBT at real-world adherence.

The main driver of the scenarios wherein the blood-based test was inferior to the stool-based tests was the inability of the blood-based test to sufficiently detect advanced adenomas. Other models have also demonstrated the important contribution of the detection and removal of advanced adenomas in reducing CRC incidence and mortality.¹⁵ For this analysis, adenoma sensitivity for the blood-based test was assumed to be between 10% and 20%, producing a wide range of LYG (10%, 228; 20%, 287) given perfect adherence. The sensitivity assumptions of the stool-based tests to detect adenomas (42% mt-sDNA, 22% FIT, and 11% FOBT) were the same as those used by the USPSTF in their 2021 recommendations¹⁸ and were derived from data compiled from clinical studies.¹⁹ In their assessment of blood-based tests for CRC screening,⁸ CMS identified 2 studies that reported advanced adenoma sensitivity.^22,23 These 2 studies used samples from the same patient population, but used first- and second-generation tests for which sensitivity was reported as 11% and 22%, respectively.^22,23 In addition, preclinical results released for another blood-based test reported an advanced adenoma sensitivity of 20%,¹⁷ although results reported in December 2022 from the ECLIPSE trial indicate an advanced adenoma sensitivity of 13% for this blood test.²⁴ Head-to-head trials will be the only way to determine whether the advanced adenoma sensitivity for a blood-based test is truly less than for stool-based tests. Therefore, for the current analysis, a lower limit for adenoma sensitivity was set at 10%, which is the false-positive rate of the CMS minimum threshold for specificity (essentially 0% adenoma sensitivity), and an additional range of adenoma sensitivities were applied up to a maximum of 20% to account for the full range of sensitivities at which the available blood-based tests are currently capable. The sensitivity analysis indicates that even when comparing the blood-based test at 100% adherence with mt-sDNA at real-world adherence, the blood-based test would require advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to achieve comparable clinical outcomes.

Screening for CRC needs to be repeated at intervals that vary depending on the screening test. Perfect adherence to the recommended 1- or 3-year intervals for noninvasive screening over the course of 30 years is not realistic in routine clinical practice. Thus, published real-world adherence rates of 65.6% for mt-sDNA,²⁰ 42.6% for FIT,²¹ and 34.4% for FOBT²¹ were applied in the model. Other adherence rates for the stool-based tests have been published that vary by the population evaluated and how adherence was defined.^25–32 Therefore, a range of adherence rates from 30% to 100% were also applied in the model to accommodate the potential variability in real-world adherence.

Higher LYG with mt-sDNA were observed compared with the blood-based test (with 10% adenoma sensitivity) at all levels of adherence. When the levels of adherence were identical between the tests, mt-sDNA and FIT maintained an advantage in LYG over the blood-based test at the highest assumed adenoma sensitivity (20% for nonadvanced and advanced adenomas). The blood-based test at 20% adenoma sensitivity outperformed FOBT at lower adherence rates. The adherence to a triennial blood-based CRC screening test is unknown, but US self-reported screening surveillance data indicated that in 2009, 89% of adults aged 45–64 years in the general population had undergone blood cholesterol screening in the previous 5 years.³³ The results of a randomized controlled trial found that offering a blood test as a second-line screening option to patients who had previously declined FIT or a colonoscopy increased initial screening from 9.6% in the control group (reoffered FIT or colonoscopy) to 17.1% in the intervention group (offered blood test as second-line option).³⁴ The rate of completing a full screening strategy (eg, follow-up colonoscopy) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In contrast, another randomized controlled trial found that when nonparticipants of a previous CRC screening trial were offered FIT, a blood test, or a choice between the 2, there was no difference in participation rates among the groups and FIT was preferred in the choice group.³⁵ With respect to the influence of screening adherence, 1 possible scenario is that real-world adherence to a blood-based test strategy will be higher than to a stool-based test strategy. Adherence may also depend on whether the blood-based test is recommended annually or triennially. In the current analysis, higher LYG with triennial mt-sDNA were observed compared with the triennial blood-based test (with 10% adenoma sensitivity), even when assuming adherence as low as 30% for mt-sDNA and as high as 100% for the blood-based test.

A limitation of this analysis is that the sensitivity of the blood- and stool-based screening tests to detect sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) was not specifically modeled. SSPs develop from a different genetic pathway than the conventional adenoma pathway, and ∼20%–30% of CRCs arise from this alternative pathway.³⁶ The sensitivity to detect SSPs varies among CRC screening tests. In 1 study, mt-sDNA was more sensitive than FIT to detect SSPs measuring ≥10 mm (42.4% vs 5.1%, respectively; P < 0.001).³⁷ The sensitivity of blood-based tests to detect SSPs is unknown. Another limitation is that the current analysis was limited to evaluation of a 3-year interval for blood-based tests, in alignment with the recently proposed CMS guidance. Assessment of additional intervals may be informative and could be considered for future analyses.

In sum, data from this modeling study suggest that blood-based screening strategies leveraging tests with minimally acceptable sensitivity for CRC, coupled with low sensitivity for adenomas (using previously reported estimates), will yield clinical outcomes that are frequently inferior to stool-based strategies, even across a wide range of adherence assumptions. Clinical trials may yield different results than the outcomes simulated in this analysis, and head-to-head randomized trials are needed for verification. To realize meaningful public health benefits of CRC screening, strengths and weaknesses of various screening modalities must be conveyed to patients.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data

Suppl_TableS1.docx^{(22.2KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_TableS2.docx^{(16.1KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_FigS1.docx^{(69.2KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_FigS2.docx^{(69.1KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Erin P. Scott, PhD, of Maple Health Group, LLC, funded by Exact Sciences Corporation.

Authors' Contributions

Dr. Fendrick contributed to conceptualization and writing—review and editing. Dr. Vahdat and Dr. Voon Chen were involved in methodology, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, software, visualization of the study, and writing—review and editing. Dr. Lieberman and Dr. Kisiel were involved in conceptualization and writing—review and editing. Dr. Limburg carried out conceptualization, methodology, and writing—review and editing. Dr. Ozbay was in charge of conceptualization, methodology, supervision, visualization, and writing—review and editing. All authors approved the final draft for submission.

Author Disclosure Statement

Dr. Fendrick has been a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, Freedman Health, GRAIL, Harvard University, Health & Wellness Innovations, Health at Scale Technologies, MedZed, Penguin Pay, Risalto, Sempre Health, the State of Minnesota, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Wellth, and Zansors; has received research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Gary and Mary West Health Policy Center, Arnold Ventures, National Pharmaceutical Council, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the State of Michigan, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Dr. Vahdat, Dr. Voon Chen, Dr. Ozbay, and Dr. Limburg are employees of Exact Sciences Corporation. Dr. Lieberman has served on an advisory board for ColoWrap and Freenome. Dr. Kisiel has received research support from Exact Sciences through a contracted services agreement and is an inventor of Mayo Clinic intellectual property, licensed to Exact Sciences, for which he could receive royalties, paid to Mayo Clinic.

Funding Information

Financial support for this study was provided through a contract with Exact Sciences Corporation. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Exact Sciences Corporation contributed to the study design, data analysis, interpretation of the data, and writing of the report.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Figure S1

Supplementary Figure S2

Supplementary Table S1

Supplementary Table S2

References

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(1):7–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010;116(3):544–573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;369(12):1106–1114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2021;325(19):1965–1977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(4):250–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, Rabeneck L, Sauer BG, Rex DK ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116(3):458–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ahlquist DA. Molecular detection of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2010;138(6):2127–2139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Jensen T, Chin J, Evans MA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer—blood-based biomarker tests: proposed decision memo. Baltimore, MD; 2020. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=Y&NCAId=299 Accessed February 14, 2023.
9. Piscitello A, Saoud L, Fendrick AM, et al. Estimating the impact of differential adherence on the comparative effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0244431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Piscitello A, Saoud L, Matney M, et al. Description and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence & Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model. 2020. bioRxiv; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.02.966838 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11. Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, Marsh TL, et al. Validation of models used to inform colorectal cancer screening guidelines: accuracy and implications. Med Decis Making 2016;36(5):604–614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Rutter CM, Savarino JE. An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(8):1992–2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. van Ballegooijen M, Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, et al. Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making 2011;31(4):540–549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Loeve F, Boer R, van Oortmarssen GJ, Van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD. The MISCAN-COLON simulation model for the evaluation of colorectal cancer screening. Comput Biomed Res 1999;32(1):13–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: an Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;325(19):1998–2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016;315(23):2595–2609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Guardant Health announces Shield™ blood test available in US to detect early signs of colorectal cancer in average-risk adults. 2022. https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2022/Guardant-Health-Announces-Shield-Blood-Test-Available-in-US-to-Detect-Early-Signs-of-Colorectal-Cancer-in-Average-Risk-Adults/default.aspx Accessed January 30, 2023.
18. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: an updated decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD; 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/final-modeling-report/colorectal-cancer-screening Accessed January 30, 2023. [PubMed]
19. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for colorectal cancer: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 202. AHRQ Publication No. 20-05271-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Miller-Wilson LA, Rutten LJF, Van Thomme J, Ozbay AB, Limburg PJ. Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in a large, nationally insured cohort. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36(11):2471–2480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Akram A, Juang D, Bustamante R, et al. Replacing the guaiac fecal occult blood test with the fecal immunochemical test increases proportion of individuals screened in a large healthcare setting. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(8):1265–1270.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Church TR, Wandell M, Lofton-Day C, et al. Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut 2014;63(2):317–325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Potter NT, Hurban P, White MN, et al. Validation of a real-time PCR-based qualitative assay for the detection of methylated SEPT9 DNA in human plasma. Clin Chem 2014;60(9):1183–1191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Guardant Health announces positive results from pivotal ECLIPSE study evaluating a blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer. 2022. https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2022/Guardant-Health-announces-positive-results-from-pivotal-ECLIPSE-study-evaluating-a-blood-test-for-the-detection-of-colorectal-cancer/default.aspx Accessed April 3, 2023.
25. Jensen CD, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Fecal immunochemical test program performance over 4 rounds of annual screening: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(7):456–463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Hassan C, Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, et al. Meta-analysis: adherence to colorectal cancer screening and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia, according to the type of screening test. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;36(10):929–940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Fisher DA, Princic N, Miller-Wilson LA, et al. Adherence to fecal immunochemical test screening among adults at average risk for colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022;37(3):719–721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Singal AG, Gupta S, Skinner CS, et al. Effect of colonoscopy outreach vs fecal immunochemical test outreach on colorectal cancer screening completion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318(9):806–815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2012;366(8):697–706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. Comparing attendance and detection rate of colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2007;132(7):2304–2312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Issaka RB, Akinsoto NO, Strait E, Chaudhari V, Flum DR, Inadomi JM. Effectiveness of a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach: a Medicare Advantage pilot study. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2020;13:1756284820945388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Weiser E, Parks P, Swartz RK, et al. Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening: real-world data from a large cohort of older adults. J Med Screen 2021;28(1):18–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Fang J, Ayala C, Loustalot F, et al. Prevalence of cholesterol screening and high blood cholesterol among adults—Unites States, 2005, 2007, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61(35):697–702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Liang PS, Zaman A, Kaminsky A, et al. Blood test increases colorectal cancer screening in persons who declined colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Young GP, Chen G, Wilson CJ, et al. “Rescue” of nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of three noninvasive test options. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021;14(8):803–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. East JE, Vieth M, Rex DK. Serrated lesions in colorectal cancer screening: detection, resection, pathology and surveillance. Gut 2015;64(6):991–1000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370(14):1287–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental data

Suppl_TableS1.docx^{(22.2KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_TableS2.docx^{(16.1KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_FigS1.docx^{(69.2KB, docx)}

Supplemental data

Suppl_FigS2.docx^{(69.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[B1] 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(1):7–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B2] 2. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010;116(3):544–573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B3] 3. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;369(12):1106–1114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B4] 4. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2021;325(19):1965–1977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B5] 5. Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(4):250–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B6] 6. Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, Rabeneck L, Sauer BG, Rex DK ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116(3):458–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B7] 7. Ahlquist DA. Molecular detection of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2010;138(6):2127–2139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B8] 8. Jensen T, Chin J, Evans MA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer—blood-based biomarker tests: proposed decision memo. Baltimore, MD; 2020. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=Y&NCAId=299 Accessed February 14, 2023.

[B9] 9. Piscitello A, Saoud L, Fendrick AM, et al. Estimating the impact of differential adherence on the comparative effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0244431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B10] 10. Piscitello A, Saoud L, Matney M, et al. Description and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence & Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model. 2020. bioRxiv; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.02.966838 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B11] 11. Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, Marsh TL, et al. Validation of models used to inform colorectal cancer screening guidelines: accuracy and implications. Med Decis Making 2016;36(5):604–614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B12] 12. Rutter CM, Savarino JE. An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(8):1992–2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B13] 13. van Ballegooijen M, Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, et al. Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making 2011;31(4):540–549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B14] 14. Loeve F, Boer R, van Oortmarssen GJ, Van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD. The MISCAN-COLON simulation model for the evaluation of colorectal cancer screening. Comput Biomed Res 1999;32(1):13–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B15] 15. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: an Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;325(19):1998–2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B16] 16. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016;315(23):2595–2609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B17] 17. Guardant Health announces Shield™ blood test available in US to detect early signs of colorectal cancer in average-risk adults. 2022. https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2022/Guardant-Health-Announces-Shield-Blood-Test-Available-in-US-to-Detect-Early-Signs-of-Colorectal-Cancer-in-Average-Risk-Adults/default.aspx Accessed January 30, 2023.

[B18] 18. Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: an updated decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD; 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/final-modeling-report/colorectal-cancer-screening Accessed January 30, 2023. [PubMed]

[B19] 19. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for colorectal cancer: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 202. AHRQ Publication No. 20-05271-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B20] 20. Miller-Wilson LA, Rutten LJF, Van Thomme J, Ozbay AB, Limburg PJ. Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in a large, nationally insured cohort. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36(11):2471–2480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B21] 21. Akram A, Juang D, Bustamante R, et al. Replacing the guaiac fecal occult blood test with the fecal immunochemical test increases proportion of individuals screened in a large healthcare setting. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(8):1265–1270.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B22] 22. Church TR, Wandell M, Lofton-Day C, et al. Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut 2014;63(2):317–325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B23] 23. Potter NT, Hurban P, White MN, et al. Validation of a real-time PCR-based qualitative assay for the detection of methylated SEPT9 DNA in human plasma. Clin Chem 2014;60(9):1183–1191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B24] 24. Guardant Health announces positive results from pivotal ECLIPSE study evaluating a blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer. 2022. https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2022/Guardant-Health-announces-positive-results-from-pivotal-ECLIPSE-study-evaluating-a-blood-test-for-the-detection-of-colorectal-cancer/default.aspx Accessed April 3, 2023.

[B25] 25. Jensen CD, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Fecal immunochemical test program performance over 4 rounds of annual screening: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(7):456–463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B26] 26. Hassan C, Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, et al. Meta-analysis: adherence to colorectal cancer screening and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia, according to the type of screening test. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;36(10):929–940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B27] 27. Fisher DA, Princic N, Miller-Wilson LA, et al. Adherence to fecal immunochemical test screening among adults at average risk for colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022;37(3):719–721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B28] 28. Singal AG, Gupta S, Skinner CS, et al. Effect of colonoscopy outreach vs fecal immunochemical test outreach on colorectal cancer screening completion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;318(9):806–815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B29] 29. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2012;366(8):697–706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B30] 30. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. Comparing attendance and detection rate of colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2007;132(7):2304–2312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B31] 31. Issaka RB, Akinsoto NO, Strait E, Chaudhari V, Flum DR, Inadomi JM. Effectiveness of a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach: a Medicare Advantage pilot study. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2020;13:1756284820945388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B32] 32. Weiser E, Parks P, Swartz RK, et al. Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening: real-world data from a large cohort of older adults. J Med Screen 2021;28(1):18–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B33] 33. Fang J, Ayala C, Loustalot F, et al. Prevalence of cholesterol screening and high blood cholesterol among adults—Unites States, 2005, 2007, and 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61(35):697–702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B34] 34. Liang PS, Zaman A, Kaminsky A, et al. Blood test increases colorectal cancer screening in persons who declined colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B35] 35. Young GP, Chen G, Wilson CJ, et al. “Rescue” of nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of three noninvasive test options. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021;14(8):803–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B36] 36. East JE, Vieth M, Rex DK. Serrated lesions in colorectal cancer screening: detection, resection, pathology and surveillance. Gut 2015;64(6):991–1000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B37] 37. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370(14):1287–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Comparison of Simulated Outcomes Between Stool- and Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

A Mark Fendrick, MD

Vahab Vahdat, PhD

Jing Voon Chen, PhD

David Lieberman, MD

Paul J Limburg, MD

A Burak Ozbay, PhD

John B Kisiel, MD

Abstract

Introduction