Clinical and Economic Impact of Tailoring Screening to Predicted Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Decision Analytic Modeling Study

BACKGROUND: Global increases in colorectal cancer risk have spurred debate about optimal use of screening resources. We explored the potential clinical and economic impact of colorectal cancer screening tailored to predicted colorectal cancer risk. METHODS: We compared screening tailored to predicted risk versus uniform screening in a validated decision analytic model, considering the average risk population's actual colorectal cancer risk distribution, and a risk-prediction tool's discriminatory ability and cost. Low, moderate, and high risk tiers were identified as colorectal cancer risk after age 50 years of ≤3%, >3 to <12%, and ≥12%, respectively, based on threshold analyses with willingness-to-pay <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Tailored colonoscopy (once at age 60 years for low risk, every 10 years for moderate risk, and every 5 years for high risk) was compared with colonoscopy every 10 years for all. Tailored fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)/colonoscopy (annual FIT for low and moderate risk, colonoscopy every 5 years for high risk) was compared with annual FIT for all. RESULTS: Assuming no colorectal cancer risk misclassification or risk-prediction tool costs, tailored screening was preferred over uniform screening. Tailored colonoscopy was minimally less effective than uniform colonoscopy, but saved $90,200-$889,000/QALY; tailored FIT/colonoscopy yielded more QALYs/person than annual FIT at $10,600-$60,000/QALY gained. Relatively modest colorectal cancer risk misclassification rates or risk-prediction tool costs resulted in uniform screening as the preferred approach. CONCLUSIONS: Current risk-prediction tools may not yet be accurate enough to optimize colorectal cancer screening. IMPACT: Uniform screening is likely to be preferred over tailored screening if a risk-prediction tool is associated with even modest misclassification rates or costs.