Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Mar;81(3):700-709.e3.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.033.

Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis

B Joseph Elmunzer  1 , Amit G Singal  2 , Jeremy B Sussman  3 , Amar R Deshpande  4 , Daniel A Sussman  4 , Marisa L Conte  5 , Ben A Dwamena  6 , Mary A M Rogers  7 , Philip S Schoenfeld  8 , John M Inadomi  9 , Sameer D Saini  8 , Akbar K Waljee  8
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis

B Joseph Elmunzer et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Comparative effectiveness data pertaining to competing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests do not exist but are necessary to guide clinical decision making and policy.

Objective: To perform a comparative synthesis of clinical outcomes studies evaluating the effects of competing tests on CRC-related mortality.

Design: Traditional and network meta-analyses. Two reviewers identified studies evaluating the effect of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), or colonoscopy on CRC-related mortality.

Interventions: gFOBT, FS, colonoscopy.

Main outcome measurements: Traditional meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of each modality on CRC mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of screening modalities. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Traditional meta-analysis revealed that, compared with no intervention, colonoscopy reduced CRC-related mortality by 57% (relative risk [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58), whereas FS reduced CRC-related mortality by 40% (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), and gFOBT reduced CRC-related mortality by 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88). NMA demonstrated nonsignificant trends favoring colonoscopy over FS (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.11) and FS over gFOBT (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09) for reducing CRC-related deaths. NMA-based simulations, however, revealed that colonoscopy has a 94% probability of being the most effective test for reducing CRC mortality and a 99% probability of being most effective when the analysis is restricted to screening studies.

Limitations: Randomized trials and observational studies were combined within the same analysis.

Conclusion: Clinical outcomes studies demonstrate that gFOBT, FS, and colonoscopy are all effective in reducing CRC-related mortality. Network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective test.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram depicting the article search and selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of the effect of screening tests compared with no intervention on CRC mortality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Evidence network of the effect of screening options on CRC mortality. Traditional meta-analysis-generated direct comparisons are denoted by solid lines and NMA-generated indirect comparisons are denoted by dashed lines. Direction of the arrow denotes superiority.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sensitivity analyses for each screening modality compared with no intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30. - PubMed
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–917. - PubMed
    1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–95. - PubMed
    1. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627–37. - PubMed
    1. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:697–706. - PubMed

Publication types