Liquid Biopsy for CRC Screening May per chance well No longer Be Ready for High Time

Liquid Biopsy for CRC Screening May per chance well No longer Be Ready for High Time

— No longer as efficient for catching conditions or as imprint-efficient as accessible checks, modeling stories thunder

Mike Bassett, Team Writer, MedPage At present

Whereas screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with a blood-based test would outcome in better outcomes than no screening in any appreciate, it would doubtless outcome in worse outcomes than at the moment accessible checks — while increasing charges — per two modeling stories printed in Gastroenterology.

Within the first, devices suggested that as soon as compared with out a screening in any appreciate, a blood-based test with a minimum performance sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 90% — the minimum standards role by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Companies and products (CMS) — would outcome in diminished CRC incidence and mortality and increased quality-adjusted existence-years (QALY) gained for an moderate-probability screening population. And it’d be imprint-efficient.

Nonetheless, when when compared with different screening picks using three microsimulation devices for CRC, blood-based attempting out fell instant, per Rosita van den Puttelaar, MSc, of the Erasmus Medical Heart in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

With out screening there would had been 77-88 CRC conditions and 32-36 CRC deaths per 1,000 members, costing $5.3-$5.8 million, the researchers obvious.

Compared with out a screening, every technique — blood-based attempting out, fecal immunochemical attempting out (FIT), multitargeted stool DNA test with FIT (sDNA-FIT), and colonoscopy — diminished the need of CRC conditions and deaths, however the profit turn out to be lowest with the blood-based technique:

  • Blood-based test: 19-33 fewer conditions and 16-21 fewer deaths per 1,000
  • FIT: 38-60 and 24-29, respectively
  • sDNA-FIT: 33-57 and 22-28
  • Colonoscopy: forty eight-73 and 25-32

Compared with FIT screening, blood-based screening resulted in 39-68 fewer QALYs per 1,000 members while increasing charges by $4.0-$4.8 million; when compared with colonoscopy, blood-based screening resulted in forty five-84 fewer QALYs while increasing charges by $2.3-$3.4 million; and when compared with sDNA-FIT, the blood-based technique resulted in 26-59 fewer QALYs per 1,000 while increasing charges by $1.3-$2.1 million.

Compared with out a screening, blood-based screening turn out to be imprint-efficient, with an additional imprint of $25,600-$43,700 per QALY gained.

Nonetheless FIT remained more realizing in QALYs gained and more imprint efficient than blood-based screening even when uptake of blood-based screening turn out to be 20 percentage points increased than uptake of FIT.

Within the 2d glimpse, researchers led by Uri Ladabaum, MD, of the Stanford University College of Medicine in Redwood City, California, old a Markov model to make a decision that screening every 3 years with a blood-based test meeting minimum CMS thresholds would slash CRC incidence by 40% and mortality by 52% versus no screening.

Nonetheless they deemed that the findings were “much less profound” than those seen with different screening methods, with reductions of 68%-seventy nine% and 73%-81%, respectively, carried out with sDNA attempting out every 3 years, annual FIT, or colonoscopy every 10 years.

Assuming it charges the identical as sDNA, the blood-based test imprint $28,500 per QALY gained versus no screening. Nonetheless, the authors stumbled on that FIT, colonoscopy, and sDNA were more imprint efficient and more realizing.

The authors furthermore obvious that in issue for a blood-based test standards to match the clinical outcomes seen with FIT, it would ought to gather a 1.8-fold, 1.5-fold, and 1.4-fold gather bigger within the participation rate in issue to match FIT’s impact on CRC incidence, CRC mortality and QALYs/particular person, respectively.

Nonetheless, “in settings with annual FIT participation charges>60%-70% (which is unrealistic in opportunistic screening), even a 100% participation rate with a blood test with the minimum CMS thresholds could per chance now not pronounce outcomes equivalent to those with annual FIT,” they added.

“Because liquid biopsy is expected to be much less efficient and dearer than at the moment established screening programs, it could probably per chance truly’t be instructed to exchange established efficient screening methods,” wrote David Lieberman, MD, of Oregon Well being and Sciences University in Portland, alongside with a panel of consultants, in an accompanying commentary in Medical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The commenters — several of whom were furthermore occupied with the modeling stories — suggested that liquid biopsy “presents a straightforward route of that could per chance abet more folk to take part in screening.”

Nonetheless, “substituting [liquid biopsy] for a at the moment efficient test would irritate affected person outcomes and gather bigger imprint,” they famous.

Lieberman and colleagues added that focusing on sensitivity to detect colorectal cancer on my own is inadequate. They famous that a key driver of the effectiveness of liquid biopsy is the detection of superior adenomas, and that modeling confirmed that increasing superior adenoma sensitivity “modestly” would be more counseled than bettering CRC sensitivity to 95%.

They suggested the next sensitivities as skill benchmarks for an efficient blood test for CRC:>90% for stage I-III CRC and ≥40%-50% for superior adenomas.

  • Mike Bassett is a workers author focusing on oncology and hematology. He depends in Massachusetts.


Van den Puttelaar and co-authors had no disclosures. Their glimpse turn out to be supported by a grant from the National Q10 Most cancers Institute (NCI) as fragment of the Most cancers Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Community and via a National Q37 Institutes of Well being/NCI Most cancers Heart Fortify grant.

Ladabaum reported serving on advisory boards for UniversalDx, Lean Medical, Vivante, and Kohler Ventures; consulting for Medtronic, Medical Genomics, Guardant Well being, Freenome, and Test-Cap. Co-authors reported more than one relationships with trade. Their glimpse turn out to be supported by the American Gastroenterological Affiliation.

Lieberman disclosed that he has consulted for Geneoscopy, ColoWrap, Universal Diagnostics, and Test-Cap. Several workshop panelists reported relationships with trade.

Essential Source


Source Reference: van den Puttelaar R, et al “Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with a blood test that meets the centers for Medicare & Medicaid products and companies coverage resolution” Gastroenterology 2024; DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.02.012.

Secondary Source


Source Reference: Ladabaum U, et al “Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) vs fecal checks or colonoscopy” Gastroenterology 2024; DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.011.

Further Source

Medical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Source Reference: Lieberman D, et al “Commentary: Liquid biopsy for moderate-probability colorectal cancer screening” Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.034.

You May Also Like