↓ Skip to main content

Personalized medicine for prevention: can risk stratified screening decrease colorectal cancer mortality at an acceptable cost?

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Causes & Control, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Personalized medicine for prevention: can risk stratified screening decrease colorectal cancer mortality at an acceptable cost?
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10552-017-0864-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sujha Subramanian, Georgiy Bobashev, Robert J. Morris, Sonja Hoover

Abstract

Tailored health care interventions are expected to transform clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop an innovative model to assess the effectiveness, cost, and harms of risk stratified colorectal cancer screening. We updated a previously validated microsimulation model consisting of three interlinked components: risk assessment, natural history, and screening/treatment modules. We used data from representative national surveys and the literature to create a synthetic population that mimics the family history and genetic profile of the US population. We applied risk stratification based on published risk assessment tools to triage individuals into five risk categories: high, increased, medium, decreased, and low. On average, the incremental cost of risk stratified screening for colorectal cancer compared to the current approach at 60% and 80% compliance rates is $18,342 and $23,961 per life year gained. The harms in terms of false positives and perforations are consistently lower for personalized scenarios across all compliance rates. False positives are reduced by more than 47.0% and perforations by at least 9.9%. There is considerable uncertainty in the life years gained, but the reduction in harms remains stable under all scenarios. A key finding is that risk stratified screening can reduce harms at all levels of compliance. Therefore, selection of screening scenarios should include comprehensive comparisons of mortality, harms from screening, and cost. This study provides guidance for evaluating risk stratified cancer screening and further research is required to identify optimal implementation approaches in the real-world setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,816
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,192
of 313,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.