Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2026; 32(43): 122311
Published online Nov 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.122311
Published online Nov 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.122311
Figure 3 Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies vs no screening.
Bar charts depict the number of modelled scenarios-varying in model, screening age and interval-in which each screening strategy was classified as cost-saving (blue), cost-effective (orange), or not cost-effective (gray) according to the original studies’ willingness-to-pay thresholds. A: Presents outcomes under perfect adherence; B: Presents outcomes under realistic adherence. AI: Artificial intelligence; cf-bDNA: Cell-free DNA blood test; CTC: Computed tomography colonography; FIT: Fecal immunochemical test; FOBT: Fecal occult blood testing; FS: Flexible sigmoidoscopy; MRC: MR colonography; mSEPT9: Methylated Septin 9 DNA blood test; mt-sDNA: Multitargeted stool-based DNA; mt-sRNA: Multitarget stool RNA; ngMT-sDNA: Next-generation MT-sDNA; UMT: Urine metabolomic-based test.
- Citation: Yan YK, Zhang YL, Lu B, He ZL, Cheng XR, Song K, Chen YQ, Han JJ, Chen HD, Dai M. Modelling the impact of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(43): 122311
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v32/i43/122311.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.122311