The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population
Abstract
CONTEXT: A recent expert panel recommended that persons at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) begin screening for CRC at age 50 years using 1 of several strategies. However, many aspects of different CRC screening strategies remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the consequences, costs, and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in average-risk individuals. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective using a Markov model. SUBJECTS: Hypothetical subjects representative of the 50-year-old US population at average risk for CRC. SETTING: Simulated clinical practice in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted lifetime costs, life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio, compared used 22 different CRC screening strategies, including those recommended by the expert panel. RESULTS: In 1 base-case analysis, compliance was assumed to be 60% with the initial screen and 80% with follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy. The most effective strategy for white men was annual rehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) plus sigmoidoscopy (followed by colonoscopy if either a low- or high-risk polyp was found) every 5 years from age 50 to 85 years, which resulted in a 60% reduction in cancer incidence and an 80% reduction in CRC mortality compared with no screening, and an incremental CE ratio of $92,900 per year of life gained compared with annual unrehydrated FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. In a base-case analysis in which compliance with screening and follow-up is assumed to be 100%, screening more often than every 10 years was prohibitively expensive; annual rehydrated FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years had an incremental CE ratio of $489,900 per life-year gained compared with the same strategy every 10 years. Other strategies recommended by the expert panel were either less effective or cost more per year of life gained than the alternatives. Colonoscopy every 10 years was less effective than the combination of annual FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. However, a single colonoscopy at age 55 years achieves nearly half of the reduction in CRC mortality obtainable with colonoscopy every 10 years. Because of increased life expectancy among white women and increased cancer mortality among blacks, CRC screening was even more cost-effective in these groups than in white men. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for CRC, even in the setting of imperfect compliance, significantly reduces CRC mortality at costs comparable to other cancer screening procedures. However, compliance rates significantly affect the incremental CE ratios. In this model of CRC, 60% compliance with an every 5-year schedule of screening was roughly equivalent to 100% compliance with an every 10-year schedule. Mathematical modeling used to inform clinical guidelines needs to take into account expected compliance rates. JAMA. 2000;284:1954-1961.
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.
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
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Cited by
WINAWER, S. (2003) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2003.50044 · Cited by 2,143
Brenner, H., Hoffmeister, M., Stegmaier, C., Brenner, G., Altenhofen, L., & Haug, U. (2007) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2007.122739 · Cited by 438
Prediction of Germline Mutations and Cancer Risk in the Lynch Syndrome
Chen, S., Wang, W., Lee, S., Nafa, K., Lee, J., Romans, K., Watson, P., Gruber, S. B., Euhus, D., Kinzler, K. W., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.12.1479 · Cited by 384
Yeoh, K.-G., Ho, K.-Y., Chiu, H.-M., Zhu, F., Ching, J. Y. L., Wu, D.-C., Matsuda, T., Byeon, J.-S., Lee, S.-K., Goh, K.-L., et al. (2011) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2010.221168 · Cited by 331
Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States
Ioannou, G. N., Chapko, M. K., & Dominitz, J. A. (2003) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07574.x · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Frazier, A. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-10-18
- Volume
- 284
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1954
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2137632872
- Cited by
- 648
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
- The paper
- Frazier, A. L. (2000). Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.