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
. 2025 Apr;8(4):e70176.
doi: 10.1002/cnr2.70176.

The Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-Target Stool DNA-Based Screening (COLOTECT), FIT, Colonoscopy and No Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Junjie Huang  1   2 , Mingtao Chen  1 , Victor C W Chan  1 , Xianjing Liu  3 , Chaoying Zhong  4 , Jianli Lin  5 , Junjie Hang  6 , Claire Chenwen Zhong  1   2 , Jinqiu Yuan  7 , Martin C S Wong  1   2   8   9   10
Affiliations

The Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-Target Stool DNA-Based Screening (COLOTECT), FIT, Colonoscopy and No Screening for Colorectal Cancer

Junjie Huang et al. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Around 1.9 million new cases and 1 million deaths worldwide were attributed to colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2020.

Aims: The aims of this study are to assess the cost-effectiveness of a multi-target stool DNA-based screening strategy, COLOTECT, compared to faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), colonoscopy, and no screening in the Asian population to inform more choices for policymakers in colorectal cancer screening.

Method and results: We assume that 100,000 persons aged 50 undergo annual FIT, annual COLOTECT multi-target testing, or colonoscopies every 10 years until age 75. The data used in this study was retrieved from different sources including the Hong Kong Cancer Registry and previously published studies on the population aged 50 to 75 years old between 2010 and 2023. This study accessed the most cost-effective screening strategy available. If a positive result of FIT or COLOTECT were observed, the participants would undergo a colonoscopy. The participants who used the colonoscopy as the main screening method conducted colonoscopies every 3 years. The Markov models were utilized to compare the outcomes from different strategies including life-years saved, years of life lost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (primary outcome). The highest ICER was observed in colonoscopy (USD 160808), followed by FIT (USD 108952), and COLOTECT (USD 82206). A higher detection rate of CRC (COLOTECT: 39.3% vs. FIT: 4.5%), more CRC cases prevented (1272 vs. 146), and life-years saved (2295 vs. 337) were observed in the COLOTECT strategy than in FIT. Additionally, a lower total cost per life-year saved of COLOTECT (USD 180097) was observed than colonoscopy (USD 238356), which identified the more affordable and cost-saving COLOTECT strategy.

Conclusion: This study highlighted the better performance of COLOTECT than FIT in detecting CRC. Additionally, given its lower cost and higher acceptance, the COLOTECT strategy might be more cost-effective than colonoscopy for massive CRC screening.

Keywords: colorectal cancer; cost‐effectiveness; multi‐target stool DNA; non‐invasive biomarker; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cost‐effectiveness analysis for the screening tests. FIT: faecal immunochemical test.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Analysis of sensitive of COLOTECT and compliance rate. FIT, faecal immunochemical test; ICER, Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Tornado diagram of ICER difference between COLOTECT and no screening. ACN, advanced colorectal neoplasm; FIT, faecal immunochemical test; ICER, Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
The ICER plan for this study. FIT, faecal immunochemical test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R. L., et al., “Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 71, no. 3 (2021): 209–249. - PubMed
    1. Hong Kong Cancer Registry , “Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 20222024,”, https://www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg, accessed 6 February 2025.
    1. Hardcastle J. D., Chamberlain J. O., Robinson M. H., et al., “Randomised Controlled Trial of Faecal‐Occult‐Blood Screening for Colorectal Cancer,” Lancet 348, no. 9040 (1996): 1472–1477, 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03386-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kronborg O., Fenger C., Olsen J., Jørgensen O. D., and Søndergaard O., “Randomised Study of Screening for Colorectal Cancer With Faecal‐Occult‐Blood Test,” Lancet 348, no. 9040 (1996): 1467–1471. - PubMed
    1. Nishihara R., Wu K., Lochhead P., et al., “Long‐Term Colorectal‐Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Lower Endoscopy,” New England Journal of Medicine 369, no. 12 (2013): 1095–1105, 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969. - DOI - PMC - PubMed