Effect of Time to Diagnostic Testing for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Abnormalities on Screening Efficacy: A Modeling Study

Background: Patients who receive an abnormal cancer screening result require follow-up for diagnostic testing, but the time to follow-up varies across patients and practices. Methods: We used a simulation study to estimate the change in lifetime screening benefits when time to follow-up for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers was increased. Estimates were based on four independently developed microsimulation models that each simulated the life course of adults eligible for breast (women ages 50–74 years), cervical (women ages 21–65 years), or colorectal (adults ages 50–75 years) cancer screening. We assumed screening based on biennial mammography for breast cancer, triennial Papanicolaou testing for cervical cancer, and annual fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. For each cancer type, we simulated diagnostic testing immediately and at 3, 6, and 12 months after an abnormal screening exam. Results: We found declines in screening benefit with longer times to diagnostic testing, particularly for breast cancer screening. Compared to immediate diagnostic testing, testing at 3 months resulted in reduced screening benefit, with fewer undiscounted life years gained per 1,000 screened (breast: 17.3%, cervical: 0.8%, colorectal: 2.0% and 2.7%, from two colorectal cancer models), fewer cancers prevented (cervical: 1.4% fewer, colorectal: 0.5% and 1.7% fewer, respectively), and, for breast and colorectal cancer, a less favorable stage distribution. Conclusions: Longer times to diagnostic testing after an abnormal screening test can decrease screening effectiveness, but the impact varies substantially by cancer type. Impact: Understanding the impact of time to diagnostic testing on screening effectiveness can help inform quality improvement efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(2); 158–64. ©2017 AACR.

[1]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  D. Cutter,et al.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100 000 women in 123 randomised trials , 2012, The Lancet.

[3]  M. Manos,et al.  A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[4]  M. Phipps,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. , 2016, JAMA.

[5]  Allan Hildesheim,et al.  An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters. , 2014, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Christopher D. Jensen,et al.  Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test. , 2016, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[7]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  Secular trends in colon and rectal cancer relative survival. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  Carolyn M. Rutter,et al.  Clarifying Differences in Natural History between Models of Screening , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  J. Haas,et al.  Reducing Variation in the "Standard of Care" for Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the PROSPR Consortium. , 2016, JAMA.

[10]  T. Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[11]  Y. Nakamura,et al.  Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  D. Ransohoff,et al.  Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Sarah E Lillie,et al.  Organizational Predictors of Colonoscopy Follow-up for Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Results: An Observational Study , 2014, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[14]  E. Halm,et al.  Time to Colonoscopy after Positive Fecal Blood Test in Four U.S. Health Care Systems , 2016, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[15]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  Dynamic Microsimulation Models for Health Outcomes , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) , 2001, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[17]  Tracey L Marsh,et al.  Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  T. Holford,et al.  The Contribution of Mammography Screening to Breast Cancer Incidence Trends in the United States: An Updated Age–Period–Cohort Model , 2015, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[19]  P. Castle,et al.  Age of Acquiring Causal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infections: Leveraging Simulation Models to Explore the Natural History of HPV-induced Cervical Cancer , 2017, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[20]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model , 2006 .

[21]  B. Monsees,et al.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[22]  Jasmin A. Tiro,et al.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium , 2016, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[23]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. , 2015, Annals of internal medicine.

[24]  J. Habbema,et al.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2014, Annals of internal medicine.

[25]  V. Moyer,et al.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  Carolyn M Rutter,et al.  An Evidence-Based Microsimulation Model for Colorectal Cancer: Validation and Application , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[27]  Vipat Kuruchittham,et al.  The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[28]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies , 2016, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[29]  J. Lortet-Tieulent,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. , 2015, JAMA.

[30]  T. Muto,et al.  The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum , 1975, Cancer.

[31]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Variation in tumor natural history contributes to racial disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.