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
. 2024 Jul;167(2):378-391.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.011. Epub 2024 Mar 26.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy

Uri Ladabaum et al. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

Background & aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation.

Methods: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses.

Results: CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation.

Conclusions: CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Keywords: Blood-Based Biomarker; Blood-Based Testing; Colorectal Cancer; Comparative Effectiveness; Cost-Effectiveness; Decision Analysis; Health Economics; Liquid Biopsy; Screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

These authors disclose the following: Uri Ladabaum: advisory board of UniversalDx, Lean Medical, Vivante, and Kohler Ventures and consultant for Medtronic, Clinical Genomics, Guardant Health, Freenome, and ChekCap; Robert E. Schoen: research support: Immunovia, Exact Sciences, Freenome; David Lieberman: advisory board of UniversalDx, Geneoscopy, and Colowrap. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Clinical outcomes with established CRC screening tests and with emerging blood-based biomarkers. The minimum thresholds set by CMS are 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity for CRC (CMS minimum). QALYs are discounted and they are from age 45 years.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Discounted mean cost per person and QALYs per person with established CRC screening tests and with emerging blood-based biomarkers. The minimum thresholds set by the CMS are 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity for CRC (CMS minimum).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Impact of sensitivity for APL on the effectiveness of a blood-based test performed every 3 years. Improving APL sensitivity had a much greater impact than improving CRC sensitivity. FIT screening is annual. Colonoscopy screening is every 10 years.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;325:1978–1998. - PubMed
    1. Ladabaum U, Dominitz JA, Kahi C, et al. Strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2020;158:418–432. - PubMed
    1. Sabatino SA, Thompson TD, White MC, et al. Up-to-date breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test use in the United States, 2021. Prev Chronic Dis 2023;20:E94. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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;21:2951–2957.e2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening for colorectal cancer - blood-based biomarker tests (CAG-00454N). Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.... Accessed November 25, 2022.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances