000320
10.3205/000320
urn:nbn:de:0183-0003205
Review Article
Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer: systematic review using the HTA Core Model<Superscript>®</Superscript> for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment
Systematische Übersichtsarbeit unter Verwendung des HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment
Stürzlinger
Stürzlinger
Heidi
H
Gesundheit Österreich GmbH, Stubenring 6, 1010 Wien, AustriaAustrian Public Health Institute (GOEG), Vienna, Austria
heidi.stuerzlinger@goeg.at
author
Conrads-Frank
Conrads-Frank
Annette
A
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
author
Eisenmann
Eisenmann
Alexander
A
Austrian Public Health Institute (GOEG), Vienna, Austria
author
Invansits
Invansits
Sarah
S
Austrian Public Health Institute (GOEG), Vienna, Austria
author
Jahn
Jahn
Beate
B
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
author
Janzic
Janzic
Andrej
A
Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of the Republic of Slovenia (JAZMP), Ljubljana, Slovenia
author
Jelenc
Jelenc
Marjetka
M
National Institute of Public Health (NIJZ), Ljubljana, Slovenia
author
Kostnapfel
Kostnapfel
Tatja
T
National Institute of Public Health (NIJZ), Ljubljana, Slovenia
author
Mencej Bedrac
Mencej Bedrac
Simona
S
Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of the Republic of Slovenia (JAZMP), Ljubljana, Slovenia
author
Mühlberger
Mühlberger
Nikolai
N
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
author
Siebert
Siebert
Uwe
U
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
author
Sroczynski
Sroczynski
Gaby
G
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
author
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA)
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA)
author
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
Düsseldorf
610
colorectal neoplasms
multitarget stool DNA test
colorectal cancer screening
sensitivity
specificity
test performance
kolorektales Karzinom
Stuhl-DNA-Test
Darmkrebs-Screening
Sensitivität
Spezifität
Testgüte
Health Technology Assessment
20220210
20230623
engl
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung).
1612-3174
21
GMS German Medical Science
GMS Ger Med Sci
06
Hintergrund: Stuhl-DNA-Tests zur Früherkennung des kolorektalen Karzinoms (KRK) sind nicht-invasiv und können etablierte KRK-Screening-Verfahren ergänzen. Ziel dieses Health Technology Assessment war die Untersuchung der Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von CE-zertifizierten Stuhl-DNA-Tests im Vergleich zu anderen Tests für ein Screening einer asymptomatischen KRK-Screening-Population.Methodik: Das Assessment wurde nach den Richtlinien des Europ<![CDATA[äi</PlainText></TextGroup>schen Netzwerks für Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) durchgeführt und schloss eine systematische Literaturrecherche in MEDLINE, Cochrane und EMBASE ein, durchgeführt 2018. Die Hersteller wurden bezüglich der Übermittlung von weiteren Daten kontaktiert. Fünf Patienteninterviews halfen in der Einschätzung möglicher ethischer oder sozialer Aspekte sowie von Patientenerfahrungen und -präferenzen. Wir bewerteten das Verzerrungsrisiko mit QUADAS-2 und verwendeten GRADE, um die Qualität der Evidenz zu bewerten.</Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Ergebnisse:</Mark1> Wir identifizierten drei Studien zur Testgenauigkeit; zwei untersuchten einen Multitarget-Stuhl-DNA-Test (Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, im Vergleich zu einem fäkalen immunchemischen Test (FIT)) und eine Studie einen kombinierten DNA-Stuhltest (ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>, im Vergleich zu einem guajakbasierten Stuhlbluttest (gFOBT), Pyruvate Kinase Isoenzyme Typ M2 (M2-PK) und kombiniertem gFOBT/M2-PK). Wir fanden fünf publizierte Erhebungen zur Patientenzufriedenheit, jedoch keine Primärstudien zu den Auswirkungen eines Screenings mit den beiden Tests auf KRK oder die Gesamtmortalität. Beide Stuhl-DNA-Tests zeigten im direkten Vergleich eine höhere Sensitivität für den Nachweis von KRK und (fortgeschrittenen) Adenomen als FIT beziehungsweise gFOBT, wiesen aber eine geringere Spezifität auf. Diese Ergebnisse könnten jedoch vom genauen Typ des jeweils verwendeten FIT abhängen. Die berichteten Testausfallraten waren beim Stuhl-DNA-Test höher als beim FIT. Die Stärke der Evidenz war moderat bis hoch für die Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>-Studien und niedrig bis sehr niedrig für die ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>-Studie, die sich auf eine frühere, nicht mehr am Markt befindliche Version des Produkts bezieht und die in den Ergebnissen zur Testgenauigkeit nicht zwischen fortgeschrittenen und nicht-fortgeschrittenen Adenomen differenzierte.</Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Schlussfolgerungen:</Mark1> ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> ist der einzige derzeit in Europa am Markt befindliche Stuhl-DNA-Test und ist zu einem niedrigeren Preis als Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> erhältlich, jedoch fehlt zuverlässige Evidenz. Eine Screening-Studie mit Implementierung der aktuellen Produktversion von ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> und geeigneten Komparatoren würde daher helfen, diese Screening-Option im europäischen Kontext zu evaluieren.</Pgraph></Abstract>
<Abstract language="en" linked="yes"><Pgraph><Mark1>Background:</Mark1> Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a non-invasive technology with the potential to supplement established CRC screening tests. The aim of this health technology assessment was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of currently CE-marked stool DNA tests, compared to other CRC tests in CRC screening strategies in an asymptomatic screening population.</Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Methods:</Mark1> The assessment was carried out following the guidelines of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). This included a systematic literature search in MED-LINE, Cochrane and EMBASE in 2018. Manufacturers were asked to provide additional data. Five patient interviews helped assessing potential ethical or social aspects and patients’ experiences and preferences. We assessed the risk of bias using QUADAS-2, and the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE.</Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Results:</Mark1> We identified three test accuracy studies, two of which investigated a multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, compared fecal immunochemical test (FIT)) and one a combined DNA stool assay (ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>, compared to guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), Pyruvate Kinase Isoenzyme Type M2 (M2-PK) and combined gFOBT/M2-PK). We found five published surveys on patient satisfaction. No primary study investigating screening effects on CRC incidence or on overall mortality was found. Both stool DNA tests showed in direct comparison higher sensitivity for the detection of CRC and (advanced) adenoma compared to FIT, or gFOBT, respectively, but had lower specificity. However, these comparative results may depend on the exact type of FIT used. The reported test failure rates were higher for stool DNA testing than for FIT. The certainty of evidence was moderate to high for Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> studies, and low to very low for the ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> study which refers to a former version of the product and yielded no direct evidence on the test accuracy for ad-vanced versus non-advanced adenoma.</Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Conclusions:</Mark1> ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> is the only stool DNA test currently sold in Europe and is available at a lower price than Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, but reliable evidence is lacking. A screening study including the current product version of ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> and suitable comparators would, therefore, help evaluate the effectiveness of this screening option in a European context.</Pgraph></Abstract>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Introduction">
<MainHeadline>Introduction</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is – worldwide and in developed countries – the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in females and the third in males. It is also a leading cause of cancer-related deaths within developed countries <TextLink reference="1"></TextLink>. CRC typically develops in pre-existing benign polyps following genetic transformations. In most of the cases, colorectal carcinoma manifest as adenocarcinoma originating from epithelial cells of the colorectal mucosa. In the early stage of disease, many patients have no or non-specific symptoms <TextLink reference="2"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="4"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>. Symptoms become more common and prominent during late stages of CRC and include abdominal or back pain, rectal bleeding, iron deficiency anemia, and/or melena, altered bowel habits and shape, weight loss, diarrhea or constipation, nausea and vomiting, malaise, anorexia, and abdominal distention <TextLink reference="6"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="7"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="8"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Due to the natural history of disease with slow progression from a premalignant polyp to cancer and the high incidence and associated mortality, CRC is suitable for population screening <TextLink reference="9"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="10"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="11"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="12"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>. The Council of EU Recommendation recommends CRC screening in a target average-risk population between 50 and 74 years of age. Screening modalities include fecal occult blood testing, either guaiac-based (gFOBT) or immunochemical (FIT). With gFOBT or FIT, most of the established screening programs start between 50 and 60 years of age, with a two-year screening interval. A ten-year interval or more is recommended for screening with endoscopic screening methods, that is flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. It is recommended to continue screening up to the age of 70 to 75 years <TextLink reference="14"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="15"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>With regard to test performance characteristics, FIT is seen as superior to gFOBT. According to guidelines, combining flexible sigmoidoscopy with a stool-based test yields better results than either test alone <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>. (Total) colonoscopy is considered the reference standard for the detection of CRC, allowing an examination of the complete colon (albeit it might overlook small tumours). It is used both as a primary screening tool and as a follow-up for patients who have tested positive <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="17"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="19"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink>. Colonoscopy participation rates, however, often are not seen as sufficient, whereas non-invasive screening tests might yield higher compliance.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Non-invasive deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) stool tests have been developed for early screening and prevention of CRC. The expected benefit is that they might be superior to the other non-invasive screening tests in terms of test accuracy and comparable in terms of patient compliance. They are usually combined with FIT or gFOBT and are designed for detection of tumour DNA in the stool. Two stool DNA tests in Europe have a CE-mark as of 2018, ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> (PharmGenomics) and Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> (Exact Sciences). Only ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> is currently sold in Europe. It is a combination of two tests: </Pgraph><Pgraph><OrderedList><ListItem level="1" levelPosition="1" numString="1.">a FIT (test in fecal occult blood detecting globin by immunochemical reactions), and </ListItem><ListItem level="1" levelPosition="2" numString="2.">a DNA test detecting three molecular genetic markers in stool DNA: mutations in BRAF and KRAS, and quantification of human DNA (hDNA).</ListItem></OrderedList></Pgraph><Pgraph>In June 2020, the manufacturer website <TextLink reference="23"></TextLink> gave a price of 649 USD for Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> (around 578 EUR as of June 2020). Since an update the manufacturer website no longer publishes a price in the FAQs <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink> but directly refers to reimbursement of the product <TextLink reference="25"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>In 2022 from the manufacturer’s online shops in Germany and Austria ‘ColoAlert Basic’ can be ordered at a price of € 139.95 EUR in Austria <TextLink reference="26"></TextLink> and ‘ColoAlert Stuhltest’ can be ordered at a price of € 159.95 EUR in Germany <TextLink reference="27"></TextLink>. The Austrian price excludes value added tax and shipping costs.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Research question">
<MainHeadline>Research question</MainHeadline><Pgraph>The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer compared to other tests and to assess potential ethical, organisational, social and legal issues. Detailed research questions (see Methods section) also included patient satisfaction with the test. Table 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="table"/> shows the defined PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study designs) criteria.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Methods">
<MainHeadline>Methods</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Methodological framework</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Methods followed the guidelines of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments and are described in detail in the full assessment report <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>, which is available from the website of EUnetHTA. Detailed research questions were formulated according to the HTA Core Model<Superscript>®</Superscript> for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment Version 4.2 <TextLink reference="29"></TextLink> (including potential ethical, organisational, social and legal issues), and additional questions according to the HTA Core Model<Superscript>®</Superscript> Version 3.0 <TextLink reference="30"></TextLink>, Application for Screening Technologies, were added if applicable.</Pgraph><Pgraph>To assess the short- and long-term benefits as well as unintended harms of stool DNA screening strategies in comparison to strategies using alternative tests (e.g. colonoscopy, FIT) a benefit-harm analysis applying a decision-analytic model was conducted in addition. This analysis is described elsewhere <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Literature search and selection</SubHeadline><Pgraph>We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE in August 2018. In October 2018, a primary study <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink> with an abstract publication from 2016 <TextLink reference="32"></TextLink> was published as a full-text article and was added to the study pool as the only study on ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>. We searched for ongoing studies in clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the EU Clinical Trials Register) with an update search in March 2019. We performed a manual search in addition to the systematic search.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Two of the authors screened abstracts independently from each other for inclusion and exclusion, based on the predefined PICOS criteria (Table 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="table"/>). The same criteria were applied for the full text screening of selected abstracts, performed by the same two authors independently from each other, with cases of dissent being discussed between them. We restricted language to English or German. We checked all relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses for additional primary studies not identified by the systematic search and screened all abstracts for literature that might be relevant for epidemiologic and technology issues.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Data extraction and quality assessment</SubHeadline><Pgraph>One author extracted all relevant data of the included test accuracy studies. Results were checked by another author. We assessed risk of bias by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2 <TextLink reference="33"></TextLink>), carried out by two authors independently of each other, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We additionally assessed the quality of the body of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Stakeholder involvement</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Manufacturers of the two tests were contacted regarding contribution of data. One gave a (positive) reply and submitted device-specific information via the EUnetHTA submission file as well as answers on further queries regarding the manufacturer-sponsored study on ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Patients or healthy individuals were involved during the scoping phase via interviews (telephone or face to face). Five persons, fulfilling the criteria for a CRC screening population experienced with DNA stool testing, gFOBT, FIT or colonoscopy, were identified, either by personal communication or via a physician’s office. A standardised open questionnaire was used asking them about their experiences and preferences regarding screening tests <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. We used information from patient involvement for assessing the relevance of potential ethical and social aspects and for answering research questions related to patient aspects (e.g. satisfaction with the test).</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Results">
<MainHeadline>Results</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Search results</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Figure 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/> shows the study selection process. Out of the eight included studies, three investigated test accuracy; two of them assessed Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink> and one study assessed ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink> (Table 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="table"/>). Five published patient surveys <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="37"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="38"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink> investigating patient perceptions and preferences of CRC screening tests including stool DNA testing were identified via systematic literature search, but only one of them investigated one of the currently available tests (Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>) <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink>. They were used to complement the results from the patient interviews. No primary study was identified assessing the effectiveness of DNA stool tests on CRC incidence, CRC mortality, overall mortality or health-related quality of life.</Pgraph><Pgraph> </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Study characteristics</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Imperiale et al. <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink> conducted a cross-sectional screening study across 90 sites throughout the USA and Canada with recruitment lasting from June 2011 through November 2012. They compared the Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> DNA stool test with a FIT [OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> (Polymedco)]. In a prospective screening cohort study, Brenner et al. <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink> assessed the diagnostic performance of another FIT [FOB Gold<Superscript>®</Superscript> (Sentinel Diagnostics)] and – with adjusted cut-off – compared it with performance data of Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, as reported by Imperiale et al. <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>. Recruitment took place in 20 gastroenterology offices in Southern Germany from November 2008 to September 2014. Dollinger et al. <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink> compared in a preclinical case cohort study a combined DNA stool assay [ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> combined with a gFOBT and an hDNA quantification test (threshold 15 ng/µL)] with a single gFOBT (ColoScreen-ES<Superscript>®</Superscript>, Helena Biosciences), a single tumour Pyruvate Kinase Isoenzyme Type M2 (M2-PK) test (ScheBo Biotech AG) and a combined gFOBT/M2-PK assay. They recruited patients from 16 different sites in Germany from August 2005 to May 2007. Detailed study characteristics can be found in Table 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="table"/>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Five prospective cross-sectional patient surveys from USA <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="37"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="38"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink> were performed in (asymptomatic) screening populations, some of these study populations with and some without previous CRC screening experience. Four of these studies <TextLink reference="37"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="38"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink> referred to a USA precursor test (PreGen-Plus<Superscript>®</Superscript>) of Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, which is no longer available <TextLink reference="41"></TextLink>. Only one survey <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink> investigated Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, comparing colonoscopy with DNA stool testing (for further details see the full assessment Report <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>).</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Risk of bias for test accuracy studies</SubHeadline><Pgraph>For the two studies investigating Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>, we noted a risk of bias regarding patient selection (<TextGroup><PlainText>Table 3 </PlainText></TextGroup><ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="table"/>), no other concerns arose. We noted a considerable risk of bias as well as applicability concerns for the study investigating ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink> (Table 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="table"/>). Concerns were high that the study population did not match well with the research question of this assessment. Moreover, the stool DNA assay evaluated in the study was different from the currently available product regarding several components.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Patient interviews</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Five individuals (three female/two male) at the age of 56 to 65 were included. All of them were living in Austria. Summarised results are shown in Table 4 <ImgLink imgNo="4" imgType="table"/>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Effectiveness outcomes</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Table 5 <ImgLink imgNo="5" imgType="table"/> details test accuracy results for the detection of CRC and of adenoma, which are divided into advanced precancerous lesions (APL) and Non-APL. For the detection of CRC, Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> showed a sensitivity of 92.3% (compared with 73.8% and 96.7% for OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> and FOB Gold<Superscript>®</Superscript>, respectively) and 46.4% for the detection of CRC or APL (compared with 27.7% and 51.1% for OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> and FOB Gold<Superscript>®</Superscript>, respectively). The specificity for the detection of CRC was 84.4% (compared with 93.4% and 83.0% for OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> and FOB Gold<Superscript>®</Superscript>, respectively) and 86.6% for the detection of CRC or APL (compared with 94.9% and 86.5% for OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> and FOB Gold<Superscript>®</Superscript>, respectively). For ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> the sensitivity to detect CRC was 84.6% (compared with 68.0% and 82.9% for gFOBT and M2-PK, respectively). The sensitivity for this test was 35.5% for the detection of CRC or (any) adenoma (compared with 22.3% and 54.7% for gFOBT and M2-PK, respectively), without discriminating APL from Non-APL. Its specificity was 87.0% for the detection of CRC (compared with 95.5% and 58.7% for gFOBT and M2-PK, respectively) and 88.4% for the detection of CRC or adenoma (compared with 95.8% and 60.1% for gFOBT and M2-PK, respectively). Calculations of positive and negative predictive values as well as of number needed to screen can be found in the full report <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Safety outcomes</SubHeadline><Pgraph>No reports of adverse events or user-dependent harms of DNA stool tests were found (or mentioned) within the identified primary evidence. We also found no studies that directly investigated the consequences of false positive or false negative test results from the viewpoint of patient safety <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Other outcomes</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Test failures include tests that have not been submitted or that are unevaluable or unusable. The test failure rates were 6.25% for Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> and 0.31% for OC FIT-CHEK<Superscript>®</Superscript> (Table 6 <ImgLink imgNo="6" imgType="table"/>). For the study including ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> only a combined failure rate of all stool tests investigated was available, which amounted to 17.74% (Table 6 <ImgLink imgNo="6" imgType="table"/>).</Pgraph><Pgraph>Handling problems carrying out the test and/or taking the specimen were reported by four of the five persons interviewed for this study. Difficulties with having bowel movements were reported once. Results of the five identified published patient surveys do not hint at major handling problems for the majority of patients (for details see Stürzlinger et al. <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>).</Pgraph><Pgraph>Regarding patient preferences, four of the five interviewees said they would rather do the experienced stool test (FIT in two persons and gFOBT in the two other) than colonoscopy (three of them had already undergone a colonoscopy). One person, who was experienced in all of the four tests, appeared to be indifferent. Rather inconsistent results on screening test preferences were found within the five identified published patient surveys (for details see Stürzlinger et al. <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>).</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Organisational aspects</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Most stool tests can be ordered via the Internet or bought in a pharmacy. Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> is available by prescription only <TextLink reference="42"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="43"></TextLink>. Users can administer stool tests at home, but specimens (mostly) have to be sent to a specialiced laboratory for analysis.</Pgraph><Pgraph>No (further) relevant ethical, social or legal aspects were identified.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Discussion">
<MainHeadline>Discussion</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Of the two CE-marked DNA stool tests, ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> is the most recent product, being authorised in 2016. It is the only DNA stool test currently sold on the European market. In our systematic literature search we identified three test accuracy studies, two on Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> (both referring to the same Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> study population <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>) and one <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink> investigating ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript>. The certainty of evidence was moderate to high for Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> results and low to very low for ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> results <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. Besides serious concerns about patient selection (Table 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="table"/>), recruitment of the study dates back to 2005 to 2007 and a former version of the test was used that differs in several components from the currently available product. Also the study did not report information on the exact proportion of test failures in the DNA assay alone compared with the other stool tests <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>The test accuracy (against the reference standard) of CRC triage screening tests cannot easily be depicted as one value for sensitivity and one for specificity. Not all precancerous lesions – if not removed – progress to clinically symptomatic cancer <TextLink reference="44"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="45"></TextLink>. Thus triage screening tests should yield a positive test result in persons with CRC and, preferably, also in persons with advanced adenomas (which can be removed by polypectomy and should be followed by shorter surveillance intervals thereafter). On the one hand, it might be debated if they should also yield a positive result (and, thus, reference to colonoscopy) in cases of non-advanced adenomas. On the other hand, with regard to specificity, either the proportion of negative test results in all persons without CRC or (any) adenoma, or the proportion of negative test results in all persons without CRC or advanced adenoma, is of interest. This differentiation, however, was not reported in the study by Dollinger et al. <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink>, making it difficult to interpret and compare the test accuracy results. For the detection of CRC, ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> yielded a lower sensitivity than Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>, and, on the other hand, correctly detected a higher proportion of completely healthy persons (Table 5 <ImgLink imgNo="5" imgType="table"/>). Remarkably, the test accuracy results of FIT differed largely, depending on brand and cut-off value. Though this was not a focus of this assessment, it might be a relevant issue for comparison. There was no direct comparison between ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> and FIT. Lastly, also test failure rates are a relevant issue for judging test accuracy. Test failures can partly be compensated by collecting a second specimen, although this is associated with increased time effort and potential costs. Only in one study <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>, test failure rates were completely reported, and were highest for stool DNA testing, followed by colonoscopy, and FIT.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Results of this HTA are limited by the fact that not all PICO-comparators were investigated within the identified studies, which also is connected to the very small number of studies available for the CE-marked products. Also, the incorporation of patient views was limited by the difficulty of finding patients that had stool DNA test experience. Patient surveys found in the literature mostly referred to a precursor test of Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>In our systematic literature search, we did not identify studies on long-term effects of stool DNA tests on mortality and morbidity, which might be due to the short time period DNA tests are on the market. With regard to adverse events or direct user-dependent harms, no major findings were reported. Undoubtedly, there will be consequences from false positive and false negative test results as undetected adenomas, on the one hand might progress further and false positive results, on the other hand, lead to unnecessary colonoscopies. Moreover, positive test results mostly lead to immediate worry and all of the test procedures, but namely colonoscopies, imply some kind of immediate burden to the person tested. The benefit-harm tradeoff of respective screening strategies was investigated within a decision-analytic modeling done for this assessment <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>, but not reported in this article.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Finally, the literature search for this HTA was done in 2018. An update systematic rapid review published in 2021 <TextLink reference="46"></TextLink> which was based on the original literature search of our report <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink> found two further studies on Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> and concluded that these newer studies confirm the existing results regarding diagnostic test accuracy, with additional (favourable) results on the specificity of Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript> for detecting CRC in persons 45 to 49 years old <TextLink reference="46"></TextLink>.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Conclusions">
<MainHeadline>Conclusions</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Overall, stool DNA tests showed higher sensitivity for the detection of CRC and (advanced) adenoma than FIT or gFOBT, but lower specificity. The results depended to a degree on the exact type of FIT used. The reported test failure rate of stool DNA tests was higher than that of FIT.</Pgraph><Pgraph>ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> is the only stool DNA test currently sold in Europe and is available at a lower price than Cologuard<Superscript>®</Superscript>. Reliable evidence on ColoAlert<Superscript>®</Superscript> is lacking, however. A cross-sectional screening study including the current product version, as well as FIT as additional comparator, would therefore help in evaluating this screening option in a European context. In terms of the comparator tests, especially FIT, it would be desirable to carefully select the brand and especially the cut-off value and provide some rationale for those choices. Also, (directly) addressing the effectiveness of DNA stool tests on morbidity, mortality and health-related quality of life, by conducting prospective (randomised) controlled trials, should be considered.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Abbreviations">
<MainHeadline>Abbreviations</MainHeadline><Pgraph><UnorderedList><ListItem level="1">APL: Advanced precancerous lesions</ListItem><ListItem level="1">CRC: Colorectal cancer</ListItem><ListItem level="1">DNA: Invasive deoxyribonucleic acid</ListItem><ListItem level="1">EUnetHTA: European Network for Health Technology Assessment</ListItem><ListItem level="1">FIT: Fecal immunochemical test</ListItem><ListItem level="1">gFOBT: Guaiac-based fecal occult blood test</ListItem><ListItem level="1">GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation</ListItem><ListItem level="1">HTA: Health technology assessment</ListItem><ListItem level="1">M2-PK: Pyruvate Kinase Isoenzyme Type M2</ListItem><ListItem level="1">PICOS: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study designs</ListItem><ListItem level="1">QUADAS-2: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2</ListItem></UnorderedList></Pgraph></TextBlock>
<TextBlock linked="yes" name="Notes">
<MainHeadline>Notes</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Acknowledgements</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The authors thank Eunate Arana-Arri, Fidencio Bao Pérez, Gerfried Lexer and Isabel Idigoras Rubio for serving as external medical experts in the EUnetHTA Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of stool DNA testing. Furthermore, the authors are grateful to individual experts from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), National Agency for Regional Health Services (AGENAS), Social & Health Services and Labour Market (DEFACTUM) and Basque Office for HTA (Osteba) for the review of the draft EUnetHTA report. EUnetHTA Joint Actio<TextGroup><PlainText>n 3</PlainText></TextGroup> was supported by a grant from the European Commission in the framework of the Health Programme (2014-2020; joint action “724130”). The content of this paper represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility; it cannot be considered to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and the Agency do not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Competing interests</SubHeadline><Pgraph>See full report <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink> (published on the EunetHTA website), page 3.</Pgraph></TextBlock>
<References linked="yes">
<Reference refNo="1">
<RefAuthor>Torre LA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bray F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Siegel RL</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ferlay J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lortet-Tieulent J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Jemal A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Global Cancer Statistics, 2012</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>CA Cancer J Clin</RefJournal>
<RefPage>87-108</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87-108. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21262</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="2">
<RefAuthor>Nikolaou S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Qiu S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fiorentino F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rasheed S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Tekkis P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kontovounisios C</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Systematic review of blood diagnostic markers in colorectal cancer</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Tech Coloproctol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>481-98</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Nikolaou S, Qiu S, Fiorentino F, Rasheed S, Tekkis P, Kontovounisios C. Systematic review of blood diagnostic markers in colorectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Jul;22(7):481-98. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1820-3</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1820-3</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="3">
<RefAuthor>Sofic A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Beslic S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kocijancic I</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Sehovic N</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>CT colonography in detection of colorectal carcinoma</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2010</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Radiol Oncol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>19-23</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Sofic A, Beslic S, Kocijancic I, Sehovic N. CT colonography in detection of colorectal carcinoma. Radiol Oncol. 2010;44(1):19-23. DOI: 10.2478/v10019-010-0012-1</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.2478/v10019-010-0012-1</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="4">
<RefAuthor>Phalguni A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Seaman H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Routh K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Halloran S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Simpson S</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Tests detecting biomarkers for screening of colorectal cancer: What is on the horizon?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>GMS Health Technol Assess</RefJournal>
<RefArticleNo>Doc01</RefArticleNo>
<RefTotal>Phalguni A, Seaman H, Routh K, Halloran S, Simpson S. Tests detecting biomarkers for screening of colorectal cancer: What is on the horizon? GMS Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jun 10;11:Doc01. DOI: 10.3205/hta000122</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3205/hta000122</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="5">
<RefAuthor>Fleming M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ravula S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Tatishchev SF</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wang HL</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Colorectal carcinoma: Pathologic aspects</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2012</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Gastrointest Oncol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>153-73</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Fleming M, Ravula S, Tatishchev SF, Wang HL. Colorectal carcinoma: Pathologic aspects. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012 Sep;3(3):153-73. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2012.030</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2012.030</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="6">
<RefAuthor>Cappell MS</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>From colonic polyps to colon cancer: pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2005</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Clin Lab Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>135-77</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Cappell MS. From colonic polyps to colon cancer: pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis. Clin Lab Med. 2005 Mar;25(1):135-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.cll.2004.12.010</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2004.12.010</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="7">
<RefAuthor>Jefferson T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Cerbo M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Vicari N</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2014</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) versus guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening – Core HTA</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Jefferson T, Cerbo M, Vicari N, editors. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) versus guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening – Core HTA. Rome: Agenas – Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali; 2014. Available from: https://corehta.info/ViewCover.aspx?id=206</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://corehta.info/ViewCover.aspx?id=206</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="8">
<RefAuthor>Rex DK</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Boland CR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Dominitz JA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Giardiello FM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Johnson DA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kaltenbach T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Levin TR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lieberman D</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Robertson DJ</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2017</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Gastroenterology</RefJournal>
<RefPage>307-23</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Levin TR, Lieberman D, Robertson DJ. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017 Jul;153(1):307-23. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="9">
<RefAuthor>Schreuders EH</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Grobbee EJ</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Spaander MC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kuipers EJ</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Advances in Fecal Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>152-62</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Schreuders EH, Grobbee EJ, Spaander MC, Kuipers EJ. Advances in Fecal Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2016 Mar;14(1):152-62. DOI: 10.1007/s11938-016-0076-0</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-016-0076-0</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="10">
<RefAuthor>Waldmann E</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Regula J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ferlitsch M</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>How can screening colonoscopy be optimized?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Dig Dis</RefJournal>
<RefPage>19-27</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Waldmann E, Regula J, Ferlitsch M. How can screening colonoscopy be optimized? Dig Dis. 2015;33(1):19-27. DOI: 10.1159/000366033</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1159/000366033</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="11">
<RefAuthor>Wang X</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kuang YY</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hu XT</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Advances in epigenetic biomarker research in colorectal cancer</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2014</RefYear>
<RefJournal>World J Gastroenterol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>4276-87</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Wang X, Kuang YY, Hu XT. Advances in epigenetic biomarker research in colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Apr;20(15):4276-87. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i15.4276</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i15.4276</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="12">
<RefAuthor>Bailey JR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Aggarwal A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Imperiale TF</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Gut Liver</RefJournal>
<RefPage>204-11</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Bailey JR, Aggarwal A, Imperiale TF. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities. Gut Liver. 2016 Mar;10(2):204-11. DOI: 10.5009/gnl15420</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15420</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="13">
<RefAuthor>Danalıoğlu A</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Can “DNA-based stool tests” replace colonoscopy in screening for colon cancer?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2014</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Turk J Gastroenterol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>122-3</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Danalıoğlu A. Can “DNA-based stool tests” replace colonoscopy in screening for colon cancer? Turk J Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;25(1):122-3. DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2014.0004</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2014.0004</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="14">
<RefAuthor>Ponti A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Anttila A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ronco G</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Senore C</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2017</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Against Cancer. Cancer Screening in the European Union (2017). Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Ponti A, Anttila A, Ronco G, Senore C. Against Cancer. Cancer Screening in the European Union (2017). Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety; 2017. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2017-05/2017_cancerscreening_2ndreportimplementation_en_0.pdf</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/cancer-screening-eu-2nd-report-implementation-council-recommendation_en</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="15">
<RefAuthor>European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>von Karsa L</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Patnick J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Segnan N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Atkin W</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Halloran S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor></RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2013</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Endoscopy</RefJournal>
<RefPage>51-9</RefPage>
<RefTotal>European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group, von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1325997</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="16">
<RefAuthor>Bénard F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Barkun AN</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Martel M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>von Renteln D</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>World J Gastroenterol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>124-38</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Bénard F, Barkun AN, Martel M, von Renteln D. Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan;24(1):124-38. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.124</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.124</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="17">
<RefAuthor>Allameh Z</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Davari M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Emami M</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Sensitivity and Specificity of Colorectal Cancer Mass Screening Methods: A Systematic Review of the Literature</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2011</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Int J Cancer Manag</RefJournal>
<RefPage>e80736</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Allameh Z, Davari M, Emami M. Sensitivity and Specificity of Colorectal Cancer Mass Screening Methods: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int J Cancer Manag. 2011 Jun;4(2):e80736.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="18">
<RefAuthor>Asselineau J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Paye A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bessède E</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Perez P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Proust-Lima C</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Different latent class models were used and evaluated for assessing the accuracy of campylobacter diagnostic tests: overcoming imperfect reference standards?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Epidemiol Infect</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1556-64</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Asselineau J, Paye A, Bessède E, Perez P, Proust-Lima C. Different latent class models were used and evaluated for assessing the accuracy of campylobacter diagnostic tests: overcoming imperfect reference standards? Epidemiol Infect. 2018 Sep;146(12):1556-64. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268818001723</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268818001723</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="19">
<RefAuthor>Lauby-Secretan B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Vilahur N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bianchini F</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Guha N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Straif K</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor> International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>N Engl J Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1734-40</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Lauby-Secretan B, Vilahur N, Bianchini F, Guha N, Straif K; International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group. The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2018 May;378(18):1734-40. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1714643</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1714643</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="20">
<RefAuthor>Lin JS</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Piper MA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Perdue LA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rutter CM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Webber EM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>O’Connor E</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Smith N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Whitlock EP</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefJournal>JAMA</RefJournal>
<RefPage>2576-94</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’Connor E, Smith N, Whitlock EP. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576-94. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3332</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="21">
<RefAuthor>Reitsma JB</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rutjes AW</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Khan KS</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Coomarasamy A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bossuyt PM</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2009</RefYear>
<RefJournal>J Clin Epidemiol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>797-806</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Reitsma JB, Rutjes AW, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):797-806. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="22">
<RefAuthor>van Rijn JC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Reitsma JB</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Stoker J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bossuyt PM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>van Deventer SJ</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Dekker E</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2006</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Am J Gastroenterol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>343-50</RefPage>
<RefTotal>van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Feb;101(2):343-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="47">
<RefAuthor>Segnan N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Patnick J</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>von Karsa L</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2010</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. DOI: 10.2772/1458</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.2772/1458</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="48">
<RefAuthor>Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2019</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom. Langversion 2.1. AWMF-Registernr. 021/007OL</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom. Langversion 2.1. AWMF-Registernr. 021/007OL. Berlin: AWMF; 2019. Available from: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/021-007OLl_S3_Kolorektales-Karzinom-KRK_2019-01.pdf</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/021-007OLl_S3_Kolorektales-Karzinom-KRK_2019-01.pdf</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="49">
<RefAuthor>Wolf AMD</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fontham ETH</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Church TR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Flowers CR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Guerra CE</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>LaMonte SJ</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Etzioni R</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>McKenna MT</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Oeffinger KC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Shih YT</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Walter LC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Andrews KS</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Brawley OW</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Brooks D</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fedewa SA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Manassaram-Baptiste D</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Siegel RL</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wender RC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Smith RA</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>CA Cancer J Clin</RefJournal>
<RefPage>250-81</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, Flowers CR, Guerra CE, LaMonte SJ, Etzioni R, McKenna MT, Oeffinger KC, Shih YT, Walter LC, Andrews KS, Brawley OW, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Siegel RL, Wender RC, Smith RA. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-81. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21457</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21457</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="28">
<RefAuthor>Stürzlinger H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Conrads-Frank A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Eisenmann A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ivansits S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Jahn B</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Janzic A</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Jelenc M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kostnapfel T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Mencej Bedrac S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Mühlberger N</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rochau U</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Siebert U</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schnell-Inderst P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Sroczynski G</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2019</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer. Joint Assessment. Report No. OTJA10</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Stürzlinger H, Conrads-Frank A, Eisenmann A, Ivansits S, Jahn B, Janzic A, Jelenc M, Kostnapfel T, Mencej Bedrac S, Mühlberger N, Rochau U, Siebert U, Schnell-Inderst P, Sroczynski G. Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer. Joint Assessment. Report No. OTJA10. Vienna: EUnetHTA; 2019.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="29">
<RefAuthor>European Network for Health Technology Assessment</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Joint Action on HTA 2012-2015: HTA core model</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Joint Action on HTA 2012-2015: HTA core model. Version 3.0. 2016. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf?x69613</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf?x69613</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="30">
<RefAuthor>European Network for Health Technology Assessment</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Joint Action on HTA 2012-2015. HTA Core Model for Rapid Relative Effectiveness</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Joint Action on HTA 2012-2015. HTA Core Model for Rapid Relative Effectiveness. Version 4.2. 2015. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HTACoreModel_ForRapidREAs4.2-3.pdf?x69613</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HTACoreModel_ForRapidREAs4.2-3.pdf?x69613</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="31">
<RefAuthor>Dollinger MM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Behl S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fleig WE</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: a Multi-Center Pre-Clinical Case Cohort Study for Validation of a Combined DNA Stool Test</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Clin Lab</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1719-30</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Dollinger MM, Behl S, Fleig WE. Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: a Multi-Center Pre-Clinical Case Cohort Study for Validation of a Combined DNA Stool Test. Clin Lab. 2018 Oct;64(10):1719-30. DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180521</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2018.180521</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="32">
<RefAuthor>Dollinger M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Hiemer S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Behl S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schinköthe T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fleig W</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Frühdetektion kolorektaler Karzinome: Multizentrische Phase II-Studie zur Validierung eines neuen DNA-basierten Stuhltest</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2016</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Internist</RefJournal>
<RefPage>S53</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Dollinger M, Hiemer S, Behl S, Schinköthe T, Fleig W. Frühdetektion kolorektaler Karzinome: Multizentrische Phase II-Studie zur Validierung eines neuen DNA-basierten Stuhltest. Internist. 2016:S53.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="33">
<RefAuthor>Whiting PF</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rutjes AW</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Westwood ME</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Mallett S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Deeks JJ</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Reitsma JB</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Leeflang MM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Sterne JA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bossuyt PM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor> QUADAS-2 Group</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2011</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Ann Intern Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>529-36</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct;155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="34">
<RefAuthor>Brenner H</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Chen H</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2017</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Clin Epidemiol</RefJournal>
<RefPage>377-84</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Brenner H, Chen H. Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population. Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;9:377-84. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S136565</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S136565</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="35">
<RefAuthor>Imperiale TF</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ransohoff DF</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Itzkowitz SH</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Levin TR</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lavin P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lidgard GP</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Ahlquist DA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Berger BM</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2014</RefYear>
<RefJournal>N Engl J Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>1287-97</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Levin TR, Lavin P, Lidgard GP, Ahlquist DA, Berger BM. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr;370(14):1287-97. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311194</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311194</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="36">
<RefAuthor>Abola MV</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Fennimore TF</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Chen MM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Chen Z</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Sheth AK</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Cooper G</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Li L</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Stool DNA-based versus colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening: Patient perceptions and preferences</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Fam Med Community Health</RefJournal>
<RefPage>2-8</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Abola MV, Fennimore TF, Chen MM, Chen Z, Sheth AK, Cooper G, Li L. Stool DNA-based versus colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening: Patient perceptions and preferences. Fam Med Community Health. 2015;3(3):2-8. DOI: 10.15212/FMCH.2015.0125</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.15212/FMCH.2015.0125</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="37">
<RefAuthor>Schroy PC 3rd</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lal S</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Glick JT</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Robinson PA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Zamor P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heeren TC</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening: how does stool DNA testing fare?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2007</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Am J Manag Care</RefJournal>
<RefPage>393-400</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Schroy PC 3rd, Lal S, Glick JT, Robinson PA, Zamor P, Heeren TC. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening: how does stool DNA testing fare? Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jul;13(7):393-400.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="38">
<RefAuthor>Berger BM</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schroy PC 3rd</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rosenberg JL</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lai-Goldman M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Eisenberg M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Brown T</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Rochelle RB</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Billings PR</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Colorectal cancer screening using stool DNA analysis in clinical practice: early clinical experience with respect to patient acceptance and colonoscopic follow-up of abnormal tests</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2006</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Clin Colorectal Cancer</RefJournal>
<RefPage>338-43</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Berger BM, Schroy PC 3rd, Rosenberg JL, Lai-Goldman M, Eisenberg M, Brown T, Rochelle RB, Billings PR. Colorectal cancer screening using stool DNA analysis in clinical practice: early clinical experience with respect to patient acceptance and colonoscopic follow-up of abnormal tests. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2006 Jan;5(5):338-43. DOI: 10.3816/CCC.2006.n.003</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.3816/CCC.2006.n.003</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="39">
<RefAuthor>Calderwood AH</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wasan SK</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heeren TC</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Schroy PC 3rd</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities?</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2011</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Int J Canc Prev</RefJournal>
<RefPage>307-38</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Calderwood AH, Wasan SK, Heeren TC, Schroy PC 3rd. Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities? Int J Canc Prev. 2011;4(4):307-38.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="40">
<RefAuthor>Schroy PC 3rd</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Heeren TC</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Patient perceptions of stool-based DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2005</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Am J Prev Med</RefJournal>
<RefPage>208-14</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Schroy PC 3rd, Heeren TC. Patient perceptions of stool-based DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Feb;28(2):208-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.008</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.008</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="41">
<RefAuthor>The Regence Group</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2021</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Analysis of Human DNA in Stool Samples as a Technique for Colorectal Cancer Screening</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>The Regence Group. Analysis of Human DNA in Stool Samples as a Technique for Colorectal Cancer Screening. 2021 Dec 1. Available from: https://blue.regence.com/trgmedpol/geneticTesting/gt12.pdf</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://blue.regence.com/trgmedpol/geneticTesting/gt12.pdf</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="42">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>How to get Cologuard</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>How to get Cologuard. [last accessed 2019 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.cologuardtest.com/how-to-get-cologuard</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.cologuardtest.com/how-to-get-cologuard</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="43">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2019</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Cologuard Discussion Guide. Let’s talk</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Cologuard Discussion Guide. Let’s talk. 2019.</RefTotal>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="44">
<RefAuthor>Garcia M</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Addressing overuse and overdiagnosis in colorectal cancer screening for average-risk individuals</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2015</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Colorectal Cancer</RefJournal>
<RefPage>27-35</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Garcia M. Addressing overuse and overdiagnosis in colorectal cancer screening for average-risk individuals. Colorectal Cancer. 2015;4(1):27-35. DOI: 10.2217/crc.15.4</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.2217/crc.15.4</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="45">
<RefAuthor>Kalager M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Wieszczy P</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Lansdorp-Vogelaar I</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Corley DA</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Bretthauer M</RefAuthor>
<RefAuthor>Kaminski MF</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle>Overdiagnosis in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Time to Acknowledge a Blind Spot</RefTitle>
<RefYear>2018</RefYear>
<RefJournal>Gastroenterology</RefJournal>
<RefPage>592-5</RefPage>
<RefTotal>Kalager M, Wieszczy P, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Corley DA, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. Overdiagnosis in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Time to Acknowledge a Blind Spot. Gastroenterology. 2018 Sep;155(3):592-5. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.037</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.037</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="23">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Cologuardtest. FAQs</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Cologuardtest. FAQs. [last accessed 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: http://www.cologuardtest.com/faq/cost</RefTotal>
<RefLink>http://www.cologuardtest.com/faq/cost</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="24">
<RefAuthor>Exact Sciences Corporation</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Cologuard. FAQs</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Exact Sciences Corporation. Cologuard. FAQs. [last accessed 2022 Jul 27]. Available from: https://www.cologuard.com/faq</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.cologuard.com/faq</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="25">
<RefAuthor>Exact Sciences Corporation</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Cologuard. Insurance</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Exact Sciences Corporation. Cologuard. Insurance. [last accessed 2022 Jul 27]. Available from: https://www.cologuard.com/insurance</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://www.cologuard.com/insurance</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="26">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Coloalert basic</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Coloalert basic. Medsalus; [last accessed 2022 Jul 27]. Available from: https://medsalus.eu/shop/</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://medsalus.eu/shop/</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="27">
<RefAuthor>Anonym</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear></RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>ColoAlert Stuhltest</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>ColoAlert Stuhltest. Coloalert; [last accessed 2022 Jul 27]. Available from: https://coloalert.de/products/coloalert-stuhltest</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://coloalert.de/products/coloalert-stuhltest</RefLink>
</Reference>
<Reference refNo="46">
<RefAuthor>Goetz G</RefAuthor>
<RefTitle></RefTitle>
<RefYear>2021</RefYear>
<RefBookTitle>Stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening</RefBookTitle>
<RefPage></RefPage>
<RefTotal>Goetz G. Stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vienna: Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH; 2021. (AIHTA Policy Brief; 11). Available from: https://eprints.aihta.at/1335/</RefTotal>
<RefLink>https://eprints.aihta.at/1335/</RefLink>
</Reference>
</References>
<Media>
<Tables>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>1</MediaNo>
<MediaID>1</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 1: PICOS</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>2</MediaNo>
<MediaID>2</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 2: Main characteristics of test accuracy studies included for efficacy and safety</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>3</MediaNo>
<MediaID>3</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 3: Risk of bias for test accuracy studies (QUADAS-2)</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>4</MediaNo>
<MediaID>4</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 4: Main results from the five patient interviews</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>5</MediaNo>
<MediaID>5</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 5: Test accuracy data – sensitivity and specificity</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<Table format="png">
<MediaNo>6</MediaNo>
<MediaID>6</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 6: Test performance – failure rates</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Table>
<NoOfTables>6</NoOfTables>
</Tables>
<Figures>
<Figure format="png" height="590" width="635">
<MediaNo>1</MediaNo>
<MediaID>1</MediaID>
<Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 1: PRISMA flow chart of the study selection process</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption>
</Figure>
<NoOfPictures>1</NoOfPictures>
</Figures>
<InlineFigures>
<NoOfPictures>0</NoOfPictures>
</InlineFigures>
<Attachments>
<NoOfAttachments>0</NoOfAttachments>
</Attachments>
</Media>
</OrigData>
</GmsArticle>]]></plaintext></textgroup></pgraph></abstract></origdata></gmsarticle>