Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer
File(s)cncr29865.pdf (183.3 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
BACKGROUND
New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.
METHODS
A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.
RESULTS
Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.
CONCLUSIONS
New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach.
New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.
METHODS
A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.
RESULTS
Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.
CONCLUSIONS
New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach.
Date Issued
2016-03-03
Date Acceptance
2015-11-30
Citation
Cancer, 2016, 122 (6), pp.826-839
ISSN
0008-543X
Publisher
WILEY-BLACKWELL
Start Page
826
End Page
839
Journal / Book Title
Cancer
Volume
122
Issue
6
Copyright Statement
© 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Sponsor
Cancer Research UK
Grant Number
C8171/A16894
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Oncology
colonoscopy
colorectal cancer
fecal occult blood test
molecular diagnostics
screening test
FECAL-OCCULT-BLOOD
IMMUNOCHEMICAL HEMAGGLUTINATION TEST
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL
TEST ACCURACY
MORTALITY
POPULATION
NEOPLASIA
COLONOSCOPY
DIAGNOSIS
JAPAN
Publication Status
Published