DEVELOPMENT , TESTING AND APPLICATION OF LAMINAR MULTIELECTRODES AND BIOCOMPATIBLE COATINGS FOR INTRACORTICAL APPLICATIONS

I. Ulbert

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Aasma Shaukat,Theodore R Levin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-022-00612-y

Abstract:Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.
Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Fabrizio Stracci,Manuel Zorzi,Grazia Grazzini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00210

2014-10-27

Abstract:Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66-90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.
Regional Centers of Excellence for the Care of Patients with Acute Ischemic Heart Disease

D. Kereiakes,T. Henry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-4377-2358-8.00036-x

Abstract:
[Electrosurgery in dentistry].

P. Stanko,I. Infner

1986-11-01

Abstract:
Adopting Non-invasive Approaches into Precision Colorectal Cancer Screening

Han-Mo Chiu,Takahisa Matsuda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08696-z

2024-11-09

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Abstract:Effective screening is essential to reducing CRC incidence and mortality by detecting the disease at early stages and identifying non-invasive precursors. While colonoscopy remains the most sensitive modality to visualize and remove neoplastic lesions thereby reducing CRC and the related death, its high cost and invasive nature limit its widespread use. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), which offers a non-invasive alternative with higher public acceptance and comparable cost-effectiveness to colonoscopy, has become the preferred screening method in many regions. Newer non-invasive tests, such as multitarget stool DNA or RNA tests, have shown improved sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas, although their high costs and lower specificity present challenges for large-scale implementation. Blood-based circulating cell-free DNA test also offer promise but still require optimization to be cost-effective. The heterogeneity of the screening population further complicates the effectiveness of CRC screening programs. Variations in non-communicable disease risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome, lifestyle habits, and comorbidities, can significantly influence CRC risk and screening outcomes. Moreover, diverse screening behaviors, including inconsistent adherence to recommended screening intervals and the interchangeable use of different screening modalities, add complexity to achieving uniform effectiveness across populations. This variability underscores the need for personalized screening strategies that consider individual risk profiles and screening behaviors, as well as the application of cutting-edge technologies such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and digital twin approaches to evaluate its effectiveness. This article reviews the current CRC screening strategies, the advantages of non-invasive methods, and the potential of fecal hemoglobin concentration, to tailor screening intervals and improve risk stratification. It also discusses the emerging role of real-world data and advanced technologies in enhancing CRC screening accuracy and effectiveness, particularly in complex real-world scenarios where traditional methods may fall short. Before novel non-invasive approaches, such as ctDNA tests or polygenic risk scores, are validated and proven cost-effective, exploring the clinical utility of FIT and its quantitative measurement in both screening and surveillance by integrating real-world clinical big data seems a feasible direction for achieving sustained development in population screening.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Reimagining Colorectal Cancer Screening: Innovations and Challenges with Dr. Aasma Shaukat

Viviana Cortiana,Muskan Joshi,Harshal Chorya,Harshitha Vallabhaneni,Shreevikaa Kannan,Helena S. Coloma,Chandler H. Park,Yan Leyfman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16101898

2024-05-17

Cancers

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) currently ranks as the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, posing a significant global health burden to the population. Recent studies have reported the emergence of a new clinical picture of the disease, with a notable increase in CRC rates in younger populations of <50 years of age. The American Cancer Society (ACS) now recommends CRC screening starting at age 45 for average-risk individuals. Dr. Aasma Shaukat's Keynote Conference highlights the critical need for updated screening strategies, with an emphasis on addressing the suboptimal adherence rates and the effective management of the growing burden of CRC. Lowering the adenoma detection screening age can facilitate early identification of adenomas in younger asymptomatic patients, altering the epidemiologic landscape. However, its implications may not be as profound unless a drastic shift in the age distribution of CRC is observed. Currently, various screening options are available in practice, including stool-based tests like multitarget stool DNA (mtDNA) tests, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and imaging-based tests. In addition to existing screening methods, blood-based tests are now emerging as promising tools for early CRC detection. These tests leverage innovative techniques along with AI and machine learning algorithms, aiding in tumor detection at a significantly earlier stage, which was not possible before. Medicare mandates specific criteria for national coverage of blood-based tests, including sensitivity ≥ 74%, specificity ≥ 90%, FDA approval, and inclusion in professional society guidelines. Ongoing clinical trials, such as Freenome, Guardant, and CancerSEEK, offer hope for further advancements in blood-based CRC screening. The development of multicancer early detection tests like GRAIL demonstrates a tremendous potential for detecting various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Despite these breakthroughs, the question of accessibility and affordability still stands. The ever-evolving landscape of CRC screening reflects the strength of the scientific field in light of an altered disease epidemiology. Lowering screening age along with the integration of blood-based tests with existing screening methods holds great potential in reducing the CRC-related burden. At the same time, it is increasingly important to address the challenges of adaptation of the healthcare system to this change in the epidemiologic paradigm.

oncology
Lung sounds: A suggested approach

C. Mitchell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1983.tb122480.x

1983-10-01

Abstract:I. Robertson AJ. Rates, rhonchi. and Laennec. Lancet 1957; 1:417-423. 2. Forgacs P. Crackles and wheezes. Lancet 1967; 2:203-205. 3. Forgacs P. The functional basis of pulmonary sounds. Chest 1978; 73:399-405. 4. Murphy RL. Auscultation of the lung: past lessons. future possibilities. Thorax 1981; 36:99-107. also calledrhonchi. They are produced when the opposing wallsof airways oscillate like a reed instrument, and implya significantnarrowing of the airway at the site of production of the sound. The pitch, or frequency, of the note is determined by the physical property of the airway wall and the nature of the airflow and does not relate to the size of the airway involved. Usually a monophonic (of a single frequency) wheeze suggests localized obstruction, whereas polyphonic (of many frequencies) wheezes indicate widespread airway obstruction. Inspiratory wheezes imply significant airway narrowing during inspiration and, hence, intrinsic airway narrowing. Crackles. These discontinuous nonmusical adventitious sounds have been referred to previously as rales or crepitations. A coarse variety is due to secretions in larger airways, and may be heard during both inspiration and expiration. They usually shift or disappear with effective coughing. Fine crackles are characteristically heard in pneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis, and pulmonary oedema. Presumably they are produced by the sudden opening of peripheralairways or air units. The probable physiological significance of these sounds is that the peripheralairways are unstable and collapse during expiration." When critically high pressures are reached during inspiration, air rapidly enters these distal air units and produces explosive crackling sounds. If the crackles are heard only in late inspiration, it is presumedthat most of the disease is confined to the alveoli. If they are heard in early inspirationor expiration,diseaseof the small airways may be inferred." Instability of the alveoli and of the bronchioles during respiration may be due to inflammatory disease of their walls which can be either acute or chronic, as exemplified by pneumonia and asbestosis respectively. Disturbances in the function of normally secretedsurfactant causedby the presenceof abnormal fluid is probablythe mechanism of the production of crackles in pulmonary oedema. It is unlikely that these sounds are produced by the bubbling of air through fluid in the alveoli. This statement was commissioned and approved by the Education Sub-Committee of the Thoracic Society of Australia. Comments and suggestions are welcome, and should be forwarded to the writer.
AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

Rachel B Issaka,Andrew T Chan,Samir Gupta,Rachel B. Issaka,Andrew T. Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2023.06.033

IF: 29.4

2023-09-23

Gastroenterology

Abstract:Description Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature. Methods This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology . These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements Best Practice Advice 1 All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. Best Practice Advice 2 All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. Best Practice Advice 3 Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. Best Practice Advice 4 Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. Best Practice Advice 5 The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. Best Practice Advice 6 Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. Best Practice Advice 7 Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. Best Practice Advice 8 The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. Best Practice Advice 9 Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Non-Invasive Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview

Melanie Tepus,Tung On Yau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000507701

2020-01-01

Gastrointestinal Tumors

Abstract:Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) follows a protracted stepwise progression, from benign adenomas to malignant adenocarcinomas. If detected early, 90% of deaths are preventable. However, CRC is asymptomatic in its early-stage and arises sporadically within the population. Therefore, CRC screening is a public health priority. Summary: Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is gradually replacing guaiac faecal occult blood test and is now the most commonly used screening tool for CRC screening program globally. However, FIT is still limited by the haemoglobin degradation and the intermittent bleeding patterns, so that one in four CRC cases are still diagnosed in a late stage, leading to poor prognosis. A multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard, a combination of NDRG4 and BMP3 DNA methylation, KRAS mutations, and haemoglobin) and a plasma SEPT9 DNA methylation test (Epi proColon) are non-invasive tools also approved by the US FDA, but those screening approaches are not cost-effective, and the detection accuracies remain unsatisfactory. In addition to the approved tests, faecal-/blood-based microRNA and CRC-related gut microbiome screening markers are under development, with work ongoing to find the best combination of molecular biomarkers which maximise the screening sensitivity and specificity. Key Message: Maximising the detection accuracy with a cost-effective approach for non-invasive CRC screening is urgently needed to further reduce the incidence of CRC and associated mortality rates. Gastrointest Tumors
A New Classification of Stellar Spectra

A. Fowler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/056206b0

IF: 64.8

1897-07-01

Nature

Abstract:
The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population

Derek Ebner,John Kisiel,Lianne Barnieh,Rishika Sharma,Nathaniel J Smith,Chris Estes,Vahab Vahdat,A Burak Ozbay,Paul Limburg,A Mark Fendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2260681

Abstract:Aim: The United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recently recommended lowering the age for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45 years. While initiating screening at age 45 versus 50 provides a greater opportunity for CRC early detection and prevention, the full profile of benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of expanding the screen-eligible population requires further evaluation. Materials and methods: The costs and clinical outcomes for screening at age 45 for triennial multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA], and other non-invasive stool-based modalities (annual fecal immunochemical test [FIT] and annual fecal-occult blood test [FOBT]), were estimated using the validated CRC-AIM microsimulation model over a lifetime horizon. Test sensitivity and specificity inputs were based on 2021 USPSTF modeling analyses; adherence rates were based on published real-world data and the costs of the screening test, follow-up colonoscopies, complications, and CRC care were included. Outcomes are reported from the perspective of a United States payer as clinical, life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); stool-based and follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranges were explored in one-way, probabilistic and threshold analyses. Results: When compared to initiation of CRC screening at age 45 versus 50, all modalities reduced both the incidence of and mortality from CRC and increased LYG. Initiating CRC screening at age 45 was cost-effective with an ICER of $59,816 and $35,857 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for mt-sDNA versus FIT and FOBT, respectively. In the threshold analyses, at equivalent rates to stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was always cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY versus FIT and FOBT. Conclusions: Initiating average-risk CRC screening at age 45 instead of age 50 increases the estimated clinical benefit by reducing disease burden while remaining cost-effective. Among stool-based screening modalities, mt-sDNA provides the most clinical benefit in a Commercial and Medicare population.
Effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood testing, and risk-graded screening strategies in colorectal cancer screening

Ming Xu,Jing-Yi Yang,Tao Meng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i7.2270

2024-07-27

World J Gastrointest Surg

Abstract:Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumors, and early screening is crucial to improving the survival rate of patients. The combination of colonoscopy and immune fecal occult blood detection has garnered significant attention as a novel method for CRC screening. Colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests, when combined, can improve screening accuracy and early detection rates, thereby facilitating early intervention and treatment. However, certain risks and costs accompany it, making the establishment of a risk classification model crucial for accurate classification and management of screened subjects. Aim: To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood test (FIT), and risk-graded screening strategies in CRC screening. Methods: Based on the randomized controlled trial of CRC screening in the population conducted by our hospital May 2020 to May 2023, participants who met the requirements were randomly assigned to a colonoscopy group, an FIT group, or a graded screening group at a ratio of 1:2:2 (after risk assessment, the high-risk group received colonoscopy, the low-risk group received an FIT test, and the FIT-positive group received colonoscopy). The three groups received CRC screening with different protocols, among which the colonoscopy group only received baseline screening, and the FIT group and the graded screening group received annual follow-up screening based on baseline screening. The primary outcome was the detection rate of advanced tumors, including CRC and advanced adenoma. The population participation rate, advanced tumor detection rate, and colonoscopy load of the three screening programs were compared. Results: A total of 19373 subjects who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled, including 8082 males (41.7%) and 11291 females (58.3%). The mean age was 60.05 ± 6.5 years. Among them, 3883 patients were enrolled in the colonoscopy group, 7793 in the FIT group, and 7697 in the graded screening group. Two rounds of follow-up screening were completed in the FIT group and the graded screening group. The graded screening group (89.2%) and the colonoscopy group (42.3%) had the lowest overall screening participation rates, while the FIT group had the highest (99.3%). The results of the intentional analysis showed that the detection rate of advanced tumors in the colonoscopy group was greater than that of the FIT group [2.76% vs 2.17%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.65, P = 0.037]. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of advanced tumors between the colonoscopy group and the graded screening group (2.76% vs 2.35%, OR = 1.9, 95%CI: 0.93-1.51, P = 0.156), as well as between the graded screening group and the FIT group (2.35% vs 2.17%, OR = 1.09%, 95%CI: 0.88-1.34, P = 0.440). The number of colonoscopy examinations required for each patient with advanced tumors was used as an index to evaluate the colonoscopy load during population screening. The graded screening group had the highest colonoscopy load (15.4 times), followed by the colonoscopy group (10.2 times), and the FIT group had the lowest (7.8 times). Conclusion: A hierarchical screening strategy based on CRC risk assessment is feasible for screening for CRC in the population. It can be used as an effective supplement to traditional colonoscopy and FIT screening programs.
Relative peripheral refractive error and the risk of onset and progression of myopia in children.

D. Mutti,L. Sinnott,G. Mitchell,Lisa A. Jones-Jordan,M. Moeschberger,S. Cotter,R. Kleinstein,R. Manny,J. Twelker,K. Zadnik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-4826

2011-01-05

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Abstract:PURPOSE To investigate whether relative peripheral hyperopia is a risk factor for either the onset of myopia in children or the rate of myopic progression. METHODS The risk of myopia onset was assessed in 2043 nonmyopic third-grade children (mean age ± SD = 8.8 ± 0.52 years) participating in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error (CLEERE) Study between 1995 and 2007, 324 of whom became myopic by the eighth grade. Progression analyses used data from 774 myopic children in grades 1 to 8. Foveal and relative peripheral refractive error 30° in the nasal visual field was measured annually by using cycloplegic autorefraction. Axial length was measured by A-scan ultrasonography. RESULTS The association between more hyperopic relative peripheral refractive error in the third grade and the risk of the onset of myopia by the eighth grade varied by ethnic group (Asian children odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-2.30; African-American children OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58-0.96; Hispanics, Native Americans, and whites showed no significant association). Myopia progression was greater per diopter of more hyperopic relative peripheral refractive error, but only by a small amount (-0.024 D per year; P = 0.02). Axial elongation was unrelated to the average relative peripheral refractive error (P = 0.77), regardless of ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS Relative peripheral hyperopia appears to exert little consistent influence on the risk of the onset of myopic refractive error, on the rate of myopia progression, or on axial elongation.
Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality

Elvira D'Andrea,Dennis J Ahnen,Daniel A Sussman,Mehdi Najafzadeh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2735

Abstract:Current recommendations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies are based on models that assume 100% adherence. Since adherence can have a large effect on screening outcomes, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of CRC screening strategies under reported adherence rates at the population level. We developed and validated a microsimulation model to assess the effectiveness of colonoscopy (COL), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood-test (HS-gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multitarget stool DNA test (FIT-DNA), computed tomography colonography (CTC), and methylated SEPT9 DNA test (SEPT9) in terms of CRC incidence and mortality, incremental life years gained (LYG), number of colonoscopies, and adverse events for men and women 50 years or older over their lifetime. We assessed outcomes under 100% adherence rates and reported adherence rates. We also performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of varying adherence levels on CRC outcomes. Assuming 100% adherence, FIT-DNA, FIT, HS-gFOBT, and SEPT9 averted 42-45 CRC cases and 25-26 CRC deaths, COL 46 cases and 26 deaths, CTC 39 cases and 23 deaths, FS 32 cases and 19 deaths per 1000 individuals. Assuming reported adherence, SEPT9 averted 37 CRC cases and 23 CRC deaths, COL 34 cases and 20 deaths, FIT-DNA, FIT, CTC and HS-gFOBT 16-25 cases and 10-16 deaths per 1000 individuals. LYG reflected the effectiveness of each strategy in reducing CRC cases and deaths. Adverse events were more common for COL (3.7 per 1000 screened) and annual SEPT9 (3.4 per 1000 screened), and proportional to the number of colonoscopies. Among the screening strategies recommended by USPSTF, colonoscopy results in the largest benefit when we account for adherence. Adherence rates higher than 65%-70% would be required for any stool or blood-based screening modality to match the benefits of colonoscopy.
Advances in tests for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis

Sarah Cheuk Hei Chan,Jessie Qiaoyi Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2022.2065197

2022-04-15

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Nonetheless, with early detection of CRC or its precancerous lesions, mortality, and CRC incidence can be reduced. Although colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for CRC screening and diagnosis, its invasive nature, and troublesome bowel preparation deter patient participation. Therefore, there is a need to expand the use of noninvasive or minimally invasive methods to increase patient compliance.This review summarizes advances in different methods for CRC screening, including stool bacterial and metagenomic markers, fecal proteins, genetic and epigenetic markers in blood and stools, and imaging modalities. The cost-effectiveness of these methods is also discussed. FIT is more cost-effective compared to virtual colonoscopy, mSEPT9 test, and Multitarget Stool DNA test, while the cost-effectiveness of other noninvasive methods requires further evaluation.Recent evidence has well demonstrated the usefulness of gut microbiome and certain fecal bacterial markers in the noninvasive diagnosis of CRC and its precancerous lesions. Many of the fecal biomarkers, from host cells or the gut environment, show better diagnostic sensitivity than FIT. New screening tests based on these fecal biomarkers can be expected to replace FIT with higher cost-effectiveness in the near future.

pathology
Commencing colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in U.S. racial groups

John M Carethers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.966998

2022-07-22

Abstract:Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is cost-effective for reducing its mortality among the average-risk population. In the US, CRC incidence and mortality differ among racial/ethnic groups, with non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) and American Indian/Alaska Natives showing highest incidence and mortality and earlier presentation. Since 2005, some professional societies have recommended CRC screening for NHB to commence at 45 years or earlier; this was not implemented due to lack of recommendation from key groups that influence insurance payment coverage. In 2017 the highly influential U.S. Multi-Society Task Force for Colorectal Cancer recommended screening to commence at 45 years for NHB; this recommendation was supplanted by data showing an increase in early-onset CRCs in non-Hispanic Whites approaching the under-50-year rates observed for NHB. Subsequently the American Cancer Society and the USPSTF recommended that the entire average-risk population move to commence CRC screening at 45 years. Implementing screening in 45-49-year-olds has its challenges as younger groups compared with older groups participate less in preventive care. The US had made extensive progress pre-COVID-19 in closing the disparity gap for CRC screening in NHB above age 50 years; implementing screening at younger ages will take ingenuity, foresight, and creative strategy to reach a broader-aged population while preventing widening the screening disparity gap. Approaches such as navigation for non-invasive and minimally invasive CRC screening tests, removal of financial barriers such as co-pays, and complete follow up to abnormal non-invasive screening tests will need to become the norm for broad implementation and success across all racial/ethnic groups.
Screening for colorectal cancer: spoiled for choice?

Diana Sarfati,Caroline Shaw,Melissa McLeod,Tony Blakely,Ian Bissett

2016-08-19

Abstract:There are many different potential screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) that vary both in the likely magnitude of their benefits on CRC mortality and their impact on health services. Many approaches to CRC screening are cost-effective, but there is substantial uncertainty about the optimal approach. Decision models using Markov or microsimulation modelling that compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies are useful in this regard. We have reviewed recent decision models that compare the cost-effectiveness of one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with immunochemical faecal occult blood (FIT) based screening. Models consistently show that any population-based screening is cost-effective compared with no screening, and that FIT-based screening is more effective than one-off sigmoidoscopy screening. The combination of one-off sigmoidoscopy with FIT is more effective in saving lives than either modality alone, but has the greatest impact on health service resources. The recent decision to proceed with biennial FIT-based screening is consistent with current evidence.
Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test

Jean A Shapiro,Ashwini V Soman,Zahava Berkowitz,Stacey A Fedewa,Susan A Sabatino,Janet S de Moor,Tainya C Clarke,V Paul Doria-Rose,Erica S Breslau,Ahmedin Jemal,Marion R Nadel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1809

Abstract:Background: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. Methods: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. Results: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. Conclusions: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. Impact: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

Robert Benamouzig,Stéphanie Barré,Jean-Christophe Saurin,Henri Leleu,Alexandre Vimont,Sabrine Taleb,Frédéric De Bels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211002359

2021-01-01

Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 μg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 μg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 μg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies

Ravi N Sharaf,Uri Ladabaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.380

Abstract:Objectives: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy are proven to decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Sigmoidoscopy's benefit is limited to the distal colon. Observational data are conflicting regarding the degree to which colonoscopy affords protection against proximal CRC. Our aim was to explore the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative CRC screening strategies in light of the latest published data. Methods: We performed a contemporary cost-utility analysis using a Markov model validated against data from randomized controlled trials of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Persons at average CRC risk within the general US population were modeled. Screening strategies included those recommended by the United States (US) Preventive Services Task Force, including colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years (FS), annual fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and the combination FS/FIT. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Results: In the base case, FIT dominated other strategies. The advantage of FIT over FS and COLO was contingent on rates of uptake and adherence that are well above current US rates. Compared with FIT, FS and COLO both cost <$50,000/QALY gained when FIT per-cycle adherence was <50%. COLO cost $56,800/QALY gained vs. FS in the base case. COLO cost <$100,000/QALY gained vs. FS when COLO yielded a relative risk of proximal CRC of <0.5 vs. no screening. In probabilistic analyses, COLO was cost-effective vs. FS at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained in 84% of iterations. Conclusions: Screening colonoscopy may be cost-effective compared with FIT and sigmoidoscopy, depending on the relative rates of screening uptake and adherence and the protective benefit of colonoscopy in the proximal colon. Colonoscopy's cost-effectiveness compared with sigmoidoscopy is contingent on the ability to deliver ~50% protection against CRC in the proximal colon.

DEVELOPMENT , TESTING AND APPLICATION OF LAMINAR MULTIELECTRODES AND BIOCOMPATIBLE COATINGS FOR INTRACORTICAL APPLICATIONS

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies

Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives

Regional Centers of Excellence for the Care of Patients with Acute Ischemic Heart Disease

[Electrosurgery in dentistry].

Adopting Non-invasive Approaches into Precision Colorectal Cancer Screening

Reimagining Colorectal Cancer Screening: Innovations and Challenges with Dr. Aasma Shaukat

Lung sounds: A suggested approach

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

Non-Invasive Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview

A New Classification of Stellar Spectra

The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population

Effectiveness of colonoscopy, immune fecal occult blood testing, and risk-graded screening strategies in colorectal cancer screening

Relative peripheral refractive error and the risk of onset and progression of myopia in children.

Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality

Advances in tests for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis

Commencing colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in U.S. racial groups

Screening for colorectal cancer: spoiled for choice?

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies