Modelling the impact of bias in fecal immunochemical testing on long-term outcomes of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND

As the impact of unmanaged bias (i.e. systematic source of inaccuracy) in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) analytical performance on long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes is unknown, we assessed the impact bias in FIT performance in an ongoing FIT-based CRC screening program.

METHODS

This study consisted of two parts: cross-sectional observational data analysis to estimate change in short-term outcomes and microsimulation modelling to estimate change in long-term outcomes assuming different levels of bias by assuming 15 % lower up to 15 % higher Hemoglobin detected in the stool compared to observed. Two scenarios were considered: bias occurring 1) one-time only, due to the occasional bias associated with the FIT kits used in 2020 and 2) consistently due to a constant bias associated with the FIT kits used from 2020 onwards.

RESULTS

With a hypothetical bias of -15 % to +15 %, we observed a positivity rate ranging from 6.7 % to 7.8 %, and a detection rate for CRC between 0.65 % and 0.68 %. Single biases in FIT performance resulted in less than 0.1 % change in long-term CRC screening outcomes, while consistent biases resulted in a much larger change (up to 1.4 % in CRC cases and CRC-related deaths and up to 2.07 % in total costs). Detecting lower Hemoglobin concentrations resulted in a relatively larger change on long-term CRC outcomes in comparison to positive bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the substantial impact of consistent FIT bias, it is important to set evidence-based acceptance criteria of bias on long-term CRC screening outcomes and in particular, the introduction of an asymmetrical or upward shifted tolerance interval for FIT bias.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof. Dr. Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar: Associate editor at Gastroenterology; expert at the Health Council; panel member of the European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer; visiting scientist at IARC. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.