Table 4 Predicted choice probabilities for the different screening alternatives with varying scenarios for the nanopill
From: Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening
Screening alternative | Sensitivity | Specificity | Complication rate | Frequency | Predicted probability (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No screening | - | - | - | - | 42.7% (41.2% to 44.3%) |
Colonoscopya | 90% | 90% | 100/10000 | 10 years | 39.2% (36.8% to 41.6%) |
Sigmoidoscopyb | 70% | 90% | 10/10000 | 5 years | 37.5% (35.2% to 39.8%) |
iFOBTc | 80% | 90% | None | 2 years | 75.8% (73.9% to 77.7%) |
1: Nanopilld | 100% | 100% | 1/10000 | Annual | 78.8% (77.0% to 80.5%) |
2: Nanopilld | 100% | 100% | 1/10000 | 2 years | 81.0% (79.4% to 82.6%) |
3: Nanopilld | 100% | 90% | 1/10000 | Annual | 77.3% (75.4% to 79.2%) |
4: Nanopilld | 90% | 100% | 1/10000 | Annual | 73.8% (71.7% to 75.7%) |
5: Nanopilld | 95% | 95% | 1/10000 | Annual | 75.6% (73.7% to 77.4%) |
6: Nanopilld | 90% | 95% | 1/10000 | 2 years | 75.6% (73.7% to 77.4%) |