The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2021) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21654 · Cited by 16,522
Self-citationScreening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Polyp Miss Rate Determined by Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
van Rijn, J. C., Reitsma, J. B., Stoker, J., Bossuyt, P. M., van Deventer, S. J. H., & Dekker, E. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x · Cited by 1,343
Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Large Adenomas and Cancers
Johnson, C. D., Chen, M.-H., Toledano, A., Heiken, J., Dachman, A., Kuo, M. D., Menias, C., Siewert, B., Cheema, J. I. S., Obregon, R. G., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0800996 · Cited by 1,180
Serrated Lesions of the Colorectum: Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel
Rex, D. K., Ahnen, D. J., Baron, J. A., Batts, K. P., Burke, C. A., Burt, R. W., Goldblum, J. R., Guillem, J. G., Kahi, C. J., Kalady, M. F., et al. (2012) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.161 · Cited by 1,116
Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013
Siegel, R. L., Fedewa, S. A., Anderson, W. F., Miller, K. D., Ma, J., Rosenberg, P. S., & Jemal, A. (2017) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djw322 · Cited by 1,002
Self-citationUnited States Life Tables, 2017.
Arias, E., & Xu, J. (2019) · PubMed · Cited by 803
The Polyp-Cancer Sequence in the Large Bowel
Morson, B. C. (1974) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/00359157740676p115 · Cited by 706
Screening for Colorectal Cancer
Lin, J. S., Perdue, L. A., Henrikson, N. B., Bean, S., & Blasi, P. R. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4417 · Cited by 661
Self-citationRisk of Perforation After Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy: A Population-Based Study
Gatto, N. M., Frucht, H., Sundararajan, V., Jacobson, J. S., Grann, V. R., & Neugut, A. I. (2003) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/95.3.230 · Cited by 521 · cited 2×
“SIG 5, 10 45, 50, 55 70, 75, 80, 85 24 (20)”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023
Siegel, R. L., Wagle, N. S., Cercek, A., Smith, R. A., & Jemal, A. (2023) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21772 · Cited by 4,068
Self-citationScreening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Screening for Colorectal Cancer
US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M. D., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Krist, A. H., et al. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238 · Cited by 2,106
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Self-citationPatel, S. G., Karlitz, J. J., Yen, T., Lieu, C. H., & Boland, C. R. (2022) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00426-x · Cited by 812
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2021-05-18
- Volume
- 325
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1998
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC8409520
- OpenAlex
- W3162019711
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 16
- FWCI
- 19.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
