Cited by 327Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Open access
Knudsen, Amy B., Rutter, Carolyn M., Peterse, Elisabeth F. P., Lietz, Anna P., Seguin, Claudia L., Meester, Reinier G. S., Perdue, Leslie A., Lin, Jennifer S. +6 more·2021·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Objective: To provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer. Exposures: Screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies. Results: Estimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2021.5746

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sensitivity of colonoscopy for the detection of intestinal adenomas larger than 1 cm and colorectal cancer is estimated at 95%.

    “The sensitivity of colonoscopy for the detection of intestinal adenomas larger than 1 cm and CRC is estimated at 95%[22,68].”

    From Risk factors, prevention and screening of colorectal cancer: A rising problem (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Methods (Screening Component; page unavailable) says lesion detection depends on test sensitivity and refers to Table 1, but the passages available from our copy do not give a 95% estimate for colonoscopy. Searches for 95%, 0.95, large adenomas, and colorectal cancer did not locate the claimed sensitivity for either lesion type. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knudsen, A. B., Rutter, C. M., Peterse, E. F. P., Lietz, A. P., Seguin, C. L., Meester, R. G. S., Perdue, L. A., Lin, J. S., Siegel, R. L., Doria-Rose, V. P., Feuer, E. J., Zauber, A. G., Kuntz, K. M., & Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • American Cancer Society (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Corresponding author
Knudsen, Amy B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
325
Issue
19
Pages
1998
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W3162019711
Cited by
327
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 16 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
19.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA199335, U01CA253913, P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, screening guidelines, life-years gained, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, screening frequency, screening age, efficiency ratio, USPSTF recommendations, average-risk population, microsimulation model, cost-effectiveness, colorectal cancer incidence
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Colonoscopy, Female, Humans, Life Expectancy, Male, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Risk, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sex Factors, Sigmoidoscopy, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Colorectal Neoplasms, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review