search

menu

  • Research Research
    • Where science meets inspired minds

    • Back
    • Research
    • Our Science
    • Research Groups
    • Facilities & Platforms
    • Clinical research
    • Find a researcher
    • Publications
    • Knowledge Transfer
  • Careers & study Careers & study
    • Become a leader in cancer research

    • Back
    • Careers & study
    • Vacancies
    • Faculty
    • Scientific staff
    • Scientific support staff
    • Postdoctoral fellows
    • PhD Students
    • Operational staff
    • Clinical fellows
    • Life in Amsterdam
    • Student internships
  • News & Events News & Events
    • Check out our stories and events

    • Back
    • News & Events
    • News
    • Media & Press
    • Calendar
  • About us About us
    • Maximum impact for cancer patients

    • Back
    • About us
    • Our vision
    • Organization
    • Collaborations
    • Responsible Research
    • Support us
    • Visit us
    • Contact us
  • Support us
Support us
  • Home
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Article

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer.

Graeme P Young ,
Carlo Senore ,
Jack S Mandel ,
James E Allison ,
Wendy S Atkin ,
Robert Benamouzig ,
Patrick M M Bossuyt ,
Mahinda De Silva ,
Lydia Guittet ,
Stephen P Halloran ,
Ulrike Haug ,
Geir Hoff ,
Steven H Itzkowitz ,
Marcis Leja ,
Bernard Levin ,
Gerrit A Meijer ,
Colm A O'Morain ,
Susan Parry ,
Linda Rabeneck ,
Paul Rozen ,
Hiroshi Saito ,
Robert E Schoen ,
Helen E Seaman ,
Robert J C Steele ,
Joseph J Y Sung ,
Sidney J Winawer

Abstract

METHODS

A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.

CONCLUSIONS

New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach.

RESULTS

Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.

BACKGROUND

New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.

More about this publication

Cancer

Volume 122
Issue nr. 6
Pages 826-39
Publication date 15-03-2016

Full text links

Publisher website (DOI) 10.1002/cncr.29865
Europe PubMed Central 26828588
Pubmed 26828588

Where science meets inspired minds

Contact

Plesmanlaan 121
1066CX Amsterdam

020 512 9111 communicatie@nki.nl

Quick links

  • Vacancies
  • News
  • Contact us
  • Media & Press

Follow us on

Disclaimer
Privacy statement
Cookies
Change cookie settings

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.