ArticleBMJ public health2025
Cost-effectiveness of FIT and a FIT-based model to optimise symptomatic diagnosis of colorectal cancer: health economic modelling for the COLOFIT project.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) at a threshold of 10 mg haemaglobin (Hb)/g is used in English primary care to prioritise urgent referral for colorectal cancer (CRC) investigation in symptomatic patients. The COLOFIT algorithm, based on FIT score, age, sex and blood results, performs better than FIT alone for identifying CRC. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COLOFIT compared with FIT and investigated optimal risk thresholds. Methods: An individual patient-level simulation model was developed, with synthetic populations constructed from data used to validate COLOFIT. Referral criteria based on different FIT scores and COLOFIT-assessed risk thresholds were modelled using probabilistic and scenario analyses. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness measured using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) based on a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000/QALY. Results: COLOFIT at a CRC risk threshold of 0.64% has a 98% probability of being more cost-effective than FIT 10 mg Hb/g (INMB is £5.67 per person), while detecting similar numbers of cancers. Cost-effectiveness is achieved by cost savings from reducing referrals outweighing QALYs lost through reorienting expedited CRC diagnoses from younger (<50) to older (≥70) patients. Cost-effectiveness improves as risk thresholds rise. High structural uncertainty around cancer progression during diagnostic delay and diagnosis of other serious bowel diseases considerably affects cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: COLOFIT is likely to be more cost-effective than FIT alone and could help alleviate pressure on diagnostic services. However, strategies to improve diagnosis in the under 50s would be necessary to mitigate potential harm. Further research should assess how COLOFIT impacts cancer survival and diagnosis of other serious bowel diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.