Search

BACKGROUND: We examined the cost-effectiveness of 2- and 3-dimensional computerized tomography (CT) colonography as a screening test for colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: We created a Markov model of the natural history of colorectal cancer. Effectiveness of screening was based upon the diagnostic accuracy of tests in detecting polyps and cancer. RESULTS: CT colonography every 5 or 10 yr was effective and cost-effective relative to no screening. Optical colonoscopy dominates 2-dimensional CT colonography done every 5 or 10 yr. Optical colonoscopy is weakly dominant over 3-dimensional CT colonography done every 10 yr. 3-D CT colonography done every 5 yr is more effective than optical colonoscopy every 10 yr, but costs an incremental $156,000 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses show that test costs, accuracy, and adherence are critical determinants of incremental cost-effectiveness. 3-D CT colonography every 5 yr is a dominant strategy if optical colonoscopy costs 1.6 times more than CT colonography. However, optical colonoscopy is a dominant strategy if the sensitivity of CT colonography for 1 cm adenomas is 83% or lower. CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography is an effective screening test for colorectal neoplasia. However, it is more expensive and generally less effective than optical colonoscopy. CT colonography can be reasonably cost-effective when the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography is high, as with primary 3-dimensional technology, and if costs are about 60% of those of optical colonoscopy. Overall, CT colonography technology will need to improve its accuracy and reliability to be a cost-effective screening option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Experts have stated that adenoma detection rates (ADR) of individual endoscopists should be measured to assess colonoscopy quality. Aim: The purpose of this study was to quantify the reliability of the ADR as a quality marker. Methods: We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients using published data on adenoma prevalence and adenoma miss rates. For each endoscopist, the ADR was calculated. The proportion of ADR variance attributable to endoscopist and the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve for low-performing endoscopists (lowest quartile or decile) were also calculated. Results: In the base-case analysis (200 patients per endoscopist, miss rate 22 %, adenoma prevalence 24 %), only 13 % of ADR variance was attributable to endoscopist performance (AUROC up to 0.73). An ADR cutoff of <16.5 % identified approximately half of endoscopists in the lowest performance decile (test sensitivity = 53 %), but most (79 %) of the endoscopists identified by this cutoff were NOT low performers (i.e., false positives). In sensitivity analysis, increasing the number of patients per endoscopist, reducing the variance of adenoma prevalence between endoscopists (i.e., performing case-mix adjustment), and increasing the variance in performance between endoscopists all improved ADR test characteristics (AUROC up to 0.88). However, regardless of assumptions, a substantial proportion of endoscopists would be misclassified if a simple ADR cutoff were utilized. Conclusions: The ADR has limited reliability as a quality marker under real-world assumptions. Simple cutoffs are likely to either be insufficiently sensitive or have high false positive rates. Future studies should identify alternative means for assessing endoscopist performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most existing performance measures focus on underuse of care, but there is growing interest in identifying and reducing overuse.Objective: We aimed to develop a valid and reliable electronic performance measure of overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System (VA), and to quantify overuse in VA.Design: This was a cross-sectional study with multiple cross-sections.Subjects: U.S. Veterans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2011 and 2013.Main Measures: Overuse of screening colonoscopy, using a validated electronic measure developed by an expert workgroup.Key Results: Compared to results obtained from manual record review, the electronic measure was highly specific (97 %) for overuse, but not sensitive (20 %). After exclusion of diagnostic and high-risk screening or surveillance procedures, the validated electronic measure identified 88,754 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed in VA during 2013. Of these, 20,530 (23 %) met the definition for probable (17 %) or possible (6 %) overuse. Substantial variation in colonoscopy overuse was noted between Veterans Integrated Care Networks (VISNs) and between facilities, with a nearly twofold difference between the maximum and minimum rates of overuse at the VISN level and a nearly eightfold difference at the facility level. Overuse at the VISN and facility level was relatively stable over time.Conclusions: Overuse of screening colonoscopy can be measured reliably and with high specificity using electronic data, and is common in a large integrated healthcare system. Overuse measures, such as those we have specified through a consensus workgroup process, could be combined with underuse measures to improve the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]