Retrospective analysis reveals rising utilization of colorectal cancer screening modalities, suggesting shifts in patient preferences and access.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the U.S., with screening playing a critical role in early detection. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of CRC screening modalities used from 2017 to 2023 using a large, national multi-payer claims database. This retrospective, cross-sectional study analyzed data from 2017 to 2023 using a national multi-payer claims database, supplemented with laboratory data related to CRC screening. Patients aged 45-75 years, at average risk for CRC, with no prior CRC diagnosis, and who had continuous health insurance enrollment for 24 months (from January 1 of the baseline year to December 31 of the study year) were included. Annual proportions for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test (FIT/FOBT), and other modalities were assessed, along with sociodemographic factors. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to assess utilization trends across the years. Colonoscopy remained the most commonly used screening modality, with its share increasing slightly from 53.0% in 2017 to 58.7% in 2023. The mt-sDNA test proportion increased significantly from 2.4% in 2017 to 20.4% in 2023, while the proportion of FIT/FOBT declined significantly, from 44% to 20.4%. Similarly, significant age-related shifts in screening utilization were observed, with colonoscopy proportion increasing from 48.1% to 61.6%, mt-sDNA rising from 0.0% to 24.0%, and FIT/FOBT declining from 50.8% to 14.1% in the 45-49 age group from 2017 to 2023. Significant shifts in CRC screening utilization were observed from 2017 to 2023, with a steady increase in colonoscopy use, notable rises in mt-sDNA testing, and a sharp decline in FIT/FOBT usage. Continued monitoring of these trends is essential to understanding the evolving landscape of CRC screening and ensuring access to the most effective modalities for all populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greene et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: