Optimal Stopping Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening
2024

Optimal Stopping Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Sample size: 144243 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Harlass Matthias MS, Dalmat Ronit R. PhD, Chubak Jessica PhD, van den Puttelaar Rosita MS, Udaltsova Natalia PhD, Corley Douglas A. MD PhD, Jensen Christopher D. PhD, Collier Nicholson PhD, Ozik Jonathan PhD, Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris PhD, Meester Reinier G.S. PhD

Primary Institution: Erasmus University Medical Center

Hypothesis

What is the optimal stopping age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the US from a cost-effectiveness perspective, considering an individual’s sex, comorbidity status, and screening history?

Conclusion

The optimal stopping ages for colorectal cancer screening vary based on sex, comorbidity, and screening history, ranging from younger than 76 to 86 years for colonoscopy and younger than 76 to 88 years for fecal immunochemical testing.

Supporting Evidence

  • The optimal stopping ages for CRC screening were validated against community-based data.
  • Older age, male sex, and higher comorbidity levels were associated with reduced cost-effectiveness of additional screening.
  • Screening-naive cohorts experienced the largest estimated gain in life-years and averted CRC deaths.

Takeaway

This study helps figure out the best age to stop getting screened for colon cancer based on a person's health and past screenings.

Methodology

The study used a microsimulation model validated against community-based data to estimate the optimal stopping ages for CRC screening by sex, comorbidity, and screening history.

Potential Biases

The study did not analyze race and ethnicity data, which may affect generalizability.

Limitations

The model may overestimate cost-effectiveness for cohorts with FIT-only screening histories and assumes 100% adherence to all tests.

Participant Demographics

The study included US adults aged 76 to 90 years, with varying sex and comorbidity status.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.51715

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication