ABSTRACT
Introduction In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a substantial public health challenge, with approximately 150,000 new cases diagnosed annually. Guidelines from organizations such as the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend several screening strategies, including endoscopic, radiologic, and stool-based options such as the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test. In this analysis, we analyzed the estimated clinical, social, and economic impacts of mt-sDNA screening over the inaugural 10-year period for test availability.
Methods To assess the effectiveness of CRC screenings with the mt-sDNA test, published rates of advanced precancerous lesions (APL) and cancer prevalence by stage, as well as the transition rate of APL to CRC for the average-risk population in the US were used for a simulated population. The mt-sDNA test’s sensitivity and specificity for APL and CRC were derived from previously published data. To assess the economic impact of screening with mt-sDNA compared to colonoscopy, we utilized data from literature regarding the time and resources required to prepare and complete each test. Furthermore, the costs of treatment according to the stage of colorectal cancer are considered, to show the value of CRC prevention and early detection.
Results Our analysis indicates that mt-sDNA screening detected an estimated 98,000 cases of CRC and 525,000 individuals were found to have APLs, precursors to CRC. When using 10-year survival rate from CRC, it is estimated that the mt-sDNA test led to more than 34,000 patients surviving due to earlier intervention compared to no screening. Furthermore, the mt-sDNA test demonstrated approximately $22.3 billion cost savings compared to no screening, including an estimated $9.7 billion in cancer treatment costs through early CRC detection and an additional $12.6 billion resulting from cancer prevention through APL detection and management.
Conclusion Clinical availability, adoption, and growth of stool-based CRC screening have significantly increased overall screening rates in the US. It is estimated that mt-sDNA utilization will continue to grow, providing a home-based CRC screening solution for millions of screen-eligible US adults over the next decade and beyond.
Competing Interest Statement
Disclosures: Chris Estes, A. Burak Ozbay, Vahab Vahdat, Paul J. Limburg, Durado Brooks are employees of Exact Sciences Corp. Paul Limburg serves as chief medical officer for screening at Exact Sciences and holds stock in the company. Prior to his direct employment, Paul Limburg worked with Exact Sciences through a contracted services agreement with Mayo Clinic. Mohammad Dehghani is a paid consultant for Exact Sciences Corp.
Funding Statement
Financial support for this study was provided by a contract with Exact Sciences Corporation. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Exact Sciences was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
