Using the Cancer Risk Management Model to Evaluate Colorectal Cancer Screening Options for Canada

Abstract

strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness. The fit was more cost-effective at the 50 ng/mL threshold than at the 100 ng/mL threshold. ConclusionsThe crmm-crc provides a sophisticated and flexible environment in which to evaluate crc control options. All screening scenarios considered in this study effectively reduced crc mortality, although sensitivity analyses demonstrated some uncertainty in the magnitude of the improvements. Where possible, local data should be used to reduce uncertainty in the parameters.

Correlating Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Results with Neoplastic Findings on Colonoscopy in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: A Prospective Study

“…To facilitate policymakers' decision, a number of cost-effectiveness analyses assessing FIT have emerged [43–46], with 2 studies assessing FIT cut-offs across a range of 50 to 100 ng/mL [45] and 50 to 200 ng/mL [46]. Both models found that a FIT cut-off of 50 ng/mL was the most cost-effective strategy.…”

The Economic Burden of Cancers Attributable to Tobacco Smoking, Excess Weight, Alcohol Use, and Physical Inactivity in Canada

“…In the early 1990s, Statistics Canada developed the Population Health Model to "assist in the evaluation of cancer control interventions and policy decision-making" 1 , with a focus on lung 2,3 , breast [4][5][6] , and colorectal cancers 7 . More recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer developed the Cancer Risk Management Model to "gain insight into the cost/benefit of cancer control strategies to help guide and strengthen decision-making" 8 , with a focus on lung 9 and colorectal cancers 10 . Other Canadian researchers have focused on prostate cancer 11,12 or the 21 most common cancers (brain, female breast, cervix, colorectal, corpus uteri, esophagus, gastric, head-and-neck, leukemia, liver, lung, lymphoma, melanoma, multiple myeloma, ovary, pancreas, prostate, renal, testis, thyroid, and urinary bladder) 13,14 .…”

Evaluation of the natural history of cancer of the cervix, implications for prevention. The Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM) – Human papillomavirus and cervical components

“…The cervical cancer model in CRMM is more complex than the lung and colorectal cancer models [11,12] because the development of cervical cancer depends on HPV infection and individuals must come in contact with one another for the disease to spread. For cervical cancer two coupled models were built, one for the infectious spread of HPV within a population, including the effects of vaccination (CRMM-HPV) and the other for the pathway from infection to disease onset, progression, screening, treatment, and mortality (CRMM-Cervical).…”

“…The initial priorities were the development of a microsimulation model to evaluate the future burden of cancer in Canada, focusing on areas where it was felt progress could be made. The first two disease-specific models completed were on lung and colorectal cancer [11,12]. In view of the major investment in screening for cancer of the cervix in Canada it was decided that a model for cervical cancer could provide input into the development of policies for organized screening and dovetail into the policy of promoting vaccination of teenage girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, 6 and 11, initiated Cancer of the uterine cervix is unique among cancers as it has a single necessary cause, infection with an oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) [13].…”