Cost-Effectiveness of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing vs Colonoscopy or Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Alaska Native People.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019. RESULTS: With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Stool DNA Testing for Screening Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in Alaska Native People.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA) compared with fecal immunochemical testing for hemoglobin (FIT) for detection of screening-relevant colorectal neoplasia (SRN) in Alaska Native people, who have among the world's highest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and limited access to conventional screening approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, cross-sectional study of asymptomatic Alaska Native adults aged 40-85 years and older undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between February 6, 2012, and August 7, 2014. RESULTS: Among 868 enrolled participants, 661 completed the study (403 [61%] women). Overall, SRN detection by MT-sDNA (49%) was superior to that by FIT (28%; P<.001); in the screening group, SRN detection rates were 50% and 31%, respectively (P=.01). Multitarget stool DNA testing detected 62% of adenomas 2 cm or larger vs 29% by FIT (P=.05). Sensitivity by MT-sDNA increased with adenoma size (to 80% for lesions ≥3 cm; P=.01 for trend) and substantially exceeded FIT sensitivity at all adenoma sizes. For sessile serrated polyps larger than 1 cm (n=9), detection was 67% by MT-sDNA vs 11% by FIT (P=.07). For CRC (n=10), detection was 100% by MT-sDNA vs 80% by FIT (P=.48). Specificities were 93% and 96%, respectively (P=.03). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of MT-sDNA for cancer and larger polyps was high and significantly greater than that of FIT for polyps of any size, while specificity was slightly higher with FIT. These findings could translate into high cumulative neoplasm detection rates on serial testing within a screening program. The MT-sDNA represents a potential strategy to expand CRC screening and reduce CRC incidence and mortality, especially where access to endoscopy is limited.

Patterns of clinical response to PSA elevation in American Indian/Alaska Native men: a multi-center pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical treatment patterns and response times among American Indian/Alaska Native men with a newly elevated PSA. METHODS: We retrospectively identified men ages 50-80 receiving care in one of three tribally-operated clinics in Northern Minnesota, one medical center in Alaska, and who had an incident PSA elevation (> 4 ng/ml) in a specified time period. A clinical response was considered timely if it was documented as occurring within 90 days of the incident PSA elevation. RESULTS: Among 82 AI/AN men identified from medical records with an incident PSA elevation, 49 (60%) received a timely clinical response, while 18 (22%) had no documented clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: One in five AI/AN men in our study had no documented clinical action following an incident PSA elevation. Although a pilot study, these findings suggest the need to improve the documentation, notification, and care following an elevated PSA at clinics serving AI/AN men.