Digestive Disease Week

Digestive Disease Week

Source:

Limburg P, et al. Poster Su053. Presented at: Digestive Disease Week; May 21-23, 2021 (virtual meeting).

Disclosures: Limburg reports a management position with Exact Sciences. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.
May 27, 2021
1 min watch
Save

VIDEO: Stool-based CRC screening promises cost effectiveness

Source:

Limburg P, et al. Poster Su053. Presented at: Digestive Disease Week; May 21-23, 2021 (virtual meeting).

Disclosures: Limburg reports a management position with Exact Sciences. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.
You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

In a video exclusive, Paul Limburg, MD, Mayo Clinic, told Healio adherence rates for stool-based colorectal cancer screening and colonoscopy informed comparative effectiveness and the need for improved screening and follow-up adherence.

“For our study we took guideline recommended stool-based screening strategies, the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA), the fecal immunochemical test and fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and inputted data into what's called the CRC-AIM modeling platform to try to understand using real world data what the outputs would be with respect to the combination of cost and effectiveness of these different screening strategies,” Limburg said.

Researchers further performed a modelling study across three scenarios; scenario 1 evaluated 100% adherence for initial screening and follow-up colonoscopy; scenario 2 evaluated reported adherence for initial screening with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy; and scenario 3 evaluated reported adherence for initial screening and reported adherence for follow-up.

According to study results, FIT and FOBT demonstrated superiority compared with mt-sDNA in scenario 1. However, mt-sDNA was most cost-effective compared with FIT ($62,814/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY) in scenario 2; mt-sDNA remained most cost-effective after adding real-world reported adherence data in scenario 3.