FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019900690> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019900690 endingPage "680" @default.
• W2019900690 startingPage "680" @default.
• W2019900690 abstract "Editorials4 November 2008Screening Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer: A Twice-Told TaleFREEMichael Pignone, MD, MPH and Harold C. Sox, MD, EditorMichael Pignone, MD, MPHFrom University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, and the American College of Physicians, Philadelphi, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this author and Harold C. Sox, MD, EditorFrom University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, and the American College of Physicians, Philadelphi, PA 19106.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00247 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Many new colorectal cancer screening technologies have emerged since the publication of the first randomized trials of Hemoccult II fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in the early 1990s (1), which complicates the task of forming clinical policy for colorectal cancer screening. As a coherent body of evidence about these tests gradually emerges, several organizations have issued practice guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. This editorial contrasts the processes and recommendations of 2 prominent organizations.In developing guidelines, each organization must set the rules: whom to include on the panel, who should recuse themselves for conflict of interest, what evidence to examine, how to evaluate the evidence, and how to translate it into recommendations. Because of the rapid emergence of new technologies, guideline panels cannot realistically rely on the gold standard for evidence on screening for cancer: randomized trials that use death from cancer as the end point.In the absence of randomized trials, guideline-making organizations have often relied on the judgment of experts who review the available data and apply criteria (in some cases explicit; in others, implicit) to estimate the benefits and harms of screening strategies. Some organizations have used systematic evidence reviews and formal modeling of benefits, harms, and cost. Some convene a panel of experts in the clinical topic. Others use clinicians who are experts in evaluating evidence and ask clinical experts to review their conclusions. Recently issued colorectal cancer guidelines allow us to see these different approaches in action.This issue includes the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines (2), an updated focused systematic review of key questions (3), and a decision analysis to help compare different testing strategies and decide on the age at which to start and stop screening (4). The USPSTF guidelines appear several months after the American Cancer SocietyU.S. Multi-Society Task Force (ACS-MSTF) guidelines, commissioned by the American Cancer Society and issued jointly by professional societies representing gastroenterology and radiology (5). The USPSTF and ACS-MSTF approached their task quite differently, and their recommendations reflect these differences.In keeping with its standard practice (6, 7), the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review of several key questions (3). This systematic review reached several conclusions. First, newer tests for occult blood (such as Hemoccult SENSA) detect more neoplasms than Hemoccult II, but with lower specificity. Second, immunochemical tests for occult blood detect as many cases of cancer as the newer guaiac tests and are somewhat more specific. Third, first-generation stool DNA tests are not substantially better than tests for fecal blood. Fourth, computed tomographic (CT) colonography in experienced hands is much more sensitive than tests for occult blood and about as specific, but it involves exposure to radiation and often requires colonoscopy to biopsy lesions. Computed tomographic colonography also detects extracolonic findings that often trigger a diagnostic search that sometimes identifies important disease. Finally, colonoscopy is not perfectly accurateit misses some cases of cancer and large polypsand has higher rates of serious harm than other strategies.In its deliberations, the USPSTF also had the results of USPSTF-commissioned microsimulation decision models performed by researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institutesupported Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network collaborative (4). These analyses used state-of-the-art modeling techniques, informed by best estimates of the key model inputs, to compare the benefits and harms of screening strategies that differed in the starting age, stopping age, and testing interval. The modelers presented estimates of health benefit and harm (the latter measured by deaths from perforating the colon during procedures) by using life-years gained or lost; they used the number of colonoscopies required to produce these health effects as their measure of efficiency.The USPSTF use of modeling is a step in the right direction, but the models reflect some surprising choices. They did not quality-adjust their estimates of benefits and harms. Their measure of effort (colonoscopies required) did not account for patient time invested in screening or the institutional costs of achieving high levels of adherence. They did not use the worldwide standard measure of efficiencycost per quality-adjusted life-yearso policymakers cannot compare the efficiency of colorectal cancer screening with that of other health care interventions. Finally, the modelers did not evaluate some new, controversial screening strategies (such as CT colonography or stool DNA testing).The models found that annual or biennial Hemoccult II used alone or flexible sigmoidoscopy used alone every 5 years was less effective than 3 other strategies that the models found to be roughly equivalent: colonoscopy alone every 10 years, annual high-sensitivity FOBT alone (which requires the fewest colonoscopies), or the combination of sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and high-sensitivity stool testing conducted at the midpoint between sigmoidoscopic examinations. These results are consistent with those of previous cost-effectiveness analyses (8).Of note, the USPSTF also addressed when to stop screening. According to their models, screening beyond age 75 years added little benefit relative to the additional number of colonoscopies required. The USPSTF recommended against routine colorectal cancer screening from age 75 to 85 years, except in special circumstances, and recommended against routine screening after age 85 years under any circumstances. This topicwhen to stop screeningis a growing area of preventive services research. The basic principle is that people should avoid screening tests when they are unlikely to survive long enough to benefit from early detectionor when the risk for adverse effects begins to increase disproportionately. In randomized trials of FOBT screening in mostly middle-aged volunteers, it took 5 years before screened patients had a clearly lower mortality rate from colorectal cancer than control participants. Thus, it makes sense to stop screening for colorectal cancer if a person's life expectancy is less than 5 years, either because of advanced age or comorbid conditions. These conclusions also emerge from empirical work (9).In contrast to the defined methods of the USPSTF, the ACS-MSTF guideline writers adopted 2 clinical perspectives to guide their process and recommendations. First, the goal of screening should be to prevent colorectal cancer; detecting polyps should therefore be the principal consideration in designing screening programs. As such, the panel recommended giving first priority to structural examinationsendoscopic inspection or imaging. It recommended noninvasive stool tests only when patients had poor access to structural tests or were reluctant to have them. Secondly, accuracy at a single point in time should be the principal criterion for recommending a test, rather than accuracy of repeated testing over time (so-called program sensitivity). In adopting the second principle, the ACS-MSTF cited concern about poor long-term adherence to annual stool testing.These perspectives led the ACS-MSTF to place considerable weight on 1 characteristic (single-application sensitivity for cancer >50%), thus making other considerations (frequency of testing, adverse effects, and costs) relatively less important. The ACS-MSTF panel did not use decision modeling or a systematic review to reach its recommendations, nor did it grade the strength of the evidence or formally rate the strength of each recommendation. It did identify recommendations that it based solely on clinical judgment.A comparison of the USPSTF and ACS-MSTF recommendations (Table) provides insight into these agencies' decision criteria. The ACS-MSTF recommended against Hemoccult II, on the basis of its low sensitivity at a single point in time. The USPSTF did not recommend against Hemoccult II or sigmoidoscopy alone, despite their relatively low estimated benefit. The ACS-MSTF did not recommend against use of sigmoidoscopy alone, perhaps because it met the ACS-MSTF criterion for single-application sensitivity.Table. A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Screening RecommendationsThe ACS-MSTF recommended CT colonography because of its good accuracy for larger polyps and cancer. The USPSTF withheld a recommendation on CT colonography because it could not estimate the benefitharm ratio, citing insufficient evidence about the potential harms of extracolonic findings and radiation exposure. Other modeling studies suggest that CT colonography is effective if it is accurate for large polyps at a reasonable cost. These analyses lacked good estimates of the risk for radiation exposure and the effect of extracolonic findings (10, 11). The ACS-MSTF also felt that evidence was sufficient to recommend stool DNA testing (based on a single-application sensitivity for colorectal cancer >50%), whereas the USPSTF, citing insufficient evidence, did not make any recommendation. A previous modeling study found stool DNA testing every 5 years to be less effective and more costly than either colonoscopy or annual FOBT screening (12).What do these differing processes and recommendations tell us about the current state of the art in making guidelines? First, the consistent application of defined methods for gathering, interpreting, and rating evidence promotes transparency and internal consistency. Second, modeling is useful because it integrates different types of evidence to estimate the net benefit of different screening strategies. However, to be most informative, modeling must evaluate all of the relevant strategies and their costs. Third, guideline makers must decide on a process for using modeling results and follow it consistently. Finally, recommendations should be specific about starting and stopping ages, testing intervals, and follow-up. In short, we think the public is best served by a relatively structured, comprehensive, transparent approach in which the entire body of evidence drives the recommendations.Michael Pignone, MD, MPHUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill, NC 27599Harold C. Sox, MDEditorReferences1. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM; Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365-71. [PMID: 8474513] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:627-37. LinkGoogle Scholar3. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:638-58. LinkGoogle Scholar4. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:659-69. LinkGoogle Scholar5. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J; American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group. US Multi-Society Task Force. American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. 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. [PMID: 18384785] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, Siu A, Teutsch S, Whitlock E; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117-22. [PMID: 17576998] LinkGoogle Scholar7. Sawaya GF, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:871-5. [PMID: 18087058] LinkGoogle Scholar8. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:96-104. [PMID: 12118964] LinkGoogle Scholar9. Gross CP, McAvay GJ, Krumholz HM, Paltiel AD, Bhasin D, Tinetti ME. The effect of age and chronic illness on life expectancy after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: implications for screening. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:646-53. [PMID: 17088577] LinkGoogle Scholar10. Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J, Wong RK, Choi JR, Napierkowski J; The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:380-90. [PMID: 17156139] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Pickhardt P, Laghi A, Kim DH, Kim D; Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:696-705. [PMID: 18413551] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Song K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U. Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1270-9. [PMID: 15131787] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, and the American College of Physicians, Philadelphi, PA 19106.Acknowledgment: The authors thank David Ransohoff for his thoughtful review and suggestions.Disclosures:Employment: M. Pignone (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force). Consultancies: M. Pignone (American Cancer SocietyU.S. Multi-Society Task Force). Grants received: M. Pignone (National Cancer Institute). Other: H.C. Sox (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Chair, 19901995; Member, 19982001]).Corresponding Author: Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina Department of Medicine, 5039 Old Clinic Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7110; e-mail, [email protected]unc.edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Pignone: University of North Carolina Department of Medicine, 5039 Old Clinic Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7110.Dr. Sox: American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementEvaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann G. Zauber , Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar , Amy B. Knudsen , Janneke Wilschut , Marjolein van Ballegooijen , and Karen M. Kuntz Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evelyn P. Whitlock , Jennifer S. Lin , Elizabeth Liles , Tracy L. Beil , and Rongwei Fu Metrics Cited ByScreening For Colorectal Cancer in the Age of Simulation Models: A Historical LensHaustral loop extraction for CT colonography using geodesicsComparison of One versus Two Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening ProgramPatients’ Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests and Preparatory Education in Federally Qualified Health CentersScreening Patterns in Patients with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer Often Do Not Adhere to National GuidelinesCirculating Methylated Septin 9 Nucleic Acid in the Plasma of Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer in the Stomach and ColonMarginal public health gain of screening for colorectal cancer: modelling study, based on WHO and national databases in the Nordic countriesScreening Based on Risk for Colorectal Cancer Is the Most Cost-Effective ApproachEndoscopy in Older Adults: Risks, Benefits, ConsiderationsRoutine Screening for Chronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: Why Don't the Guidelines Agree?Data and trends in cancer screening in the United StatesColorectal Cancer: Population Screening and SurveillanceHealthy Colon, Healthy LifeMeasuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningColorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: The Importance of Evidence and TransparencyUnderstanding Differences in the Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 4 November 2008Volume 149, Issue 9Page: 680-682KeywordsCancer screeningColonoscopyColorectal cancerColorectal cancer screeningComputed axial tomographyGenetic testingHematologic testsScreening guidelinesSystematic reviews ePublished: 4 November 2008 Issue Published: 4 November 2008 CopyrightCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2019900690 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019900690 creator A5073167210 @default.
• W2019900690 creator A5083277542 @default.
• W2019900690 date "2008-11-04" @default.
• W2019900690 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2019900690 title "Screening Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer: A Twice-Told Tale" @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2000868807 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2009681048 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2016200412 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2046686567 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2083726396 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2087870203 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2092694878 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2121191306 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2122136483 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2136864841 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2157609868 @default.
• W2019900690 cites W2163214467 @default.
• W2019900690 doi "https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00247" @default.
• W2019900690 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18840787" @default.
• W2019900690 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2019900690 type Work @default.
• W2019900690 sameAs 2019900690 @default.
• W2019900690 citedByCount "23" @default.
• W2019900690 countsByYear W20199006902012 @default.
• W2019900690 countsByYear W20199006902013 @default.
• W2019900690 countsByYear W20199006902014 @default.
• W2019900690 countsByYear W20199006902016 @default.
• W2019900690 countsByYear W20199006902020 @default.
• W2019900690 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019900690 hasAuthorship W2019900690A5073167210 @default.
• W2019900690 hasAuthorship W2019900690A5083277542 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C2776463041 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C2778435480 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C2993160541 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C121608353 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C126322002 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C2776463041 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C2778435480 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C2993160541 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C512399662 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C526805850 @default.
• W2019900690 hasConceptScore W2019900690C71924100 @default.
• W2019900690 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2019900690 hasLocation W20199006901 @default.
• W2019900690 hasLocation W20199006902 @default.
• W2019900690 hasOpenAccess W2019900690 @default.
• W2019900690 hasPrimaryLocation W20199006901 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W1800789698 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W2064471301 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W2067968081 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W2142712526 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W2609930415 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W2617195037 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W3030104556 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W3033895899 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W3093855490 @default.
• W2019900690 hasRelatedWork W3136766376 @default.
• W2019900690 hasVolume "149" @default.
• W2019900690 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019900690 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019900690 magId "2019900690" @default.
• W2019900690 workType "article" @default.