Search

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Objective: To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice., Design: 2997 successive patients with a first adenoma diagnosis (57% male, mean age 59 years) from 10 hospitals, who underwent colonoscopy between 1998 and 2002, were identified via Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief: Dutch Pathology Registry. Their medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008. Time to and findings at first surveillance colonoscopy were assessed. A surveillance colonoscopy occurring within ± 3 months of a 1-year recommended interval and ± 6 months of a recommended interval of 2 years or longer was considered appropriate. The analysis was stratified by period per change in guideline (before 2002: 2-3 years for patients with 1 adenoma, annually otherwise; in 2002: 6 years for 1-2 adenomas, 3 years otherwise). We also assessed differences in adenoma and colorectal cancer recurrence rates by surveillance timing., Results: Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients diagnosed before 2002 and in 2002, respectively. Patients eligible under the pre-2002 guideline mainly received surveillance too late or were absent (57% of cases). For patients eligible under the 2002 guideline surveillance occurred mainly too early (48%). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was higher in patients with delayed surveillance compared with those with too early or appropriate timed surveillance (8% vs 4-5%, p<0.01)., Conclusions: There is much room for improving surveillance practice. Less than 25% of patients with adenoma receive appropriate surveillance. Such practice seriously hampers the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance, as too early surveillance poses a considerable burden on available resources while delayed surveillance is associated with an increased rate of advanced adenoma and especially colorectal cancer., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

In the province-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Ontario, Canada, individuals with a family history of CRC are offered colonoscopy screening and those without are offered guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT, Hemoccult II). We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the cumulative number of CRC deaths prevented and colonoscopies performed between 2008 and 2038 with this family history-based screening program, compared to a regular gFOBT program. In both programs, we assumed screening uptake increased from 30% (participation level in 2008 before the program was launched) to 60%. We assumed that 11% of the population had a family history, defined as having at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with CRC. The programs offered screening between age 50 and 74 years, every two years for gFOBT, and every ten years for colonoscopy. Compared to opportunistic screening (2008 participation level kept constant at 30%), the gFOBT program cumulatively prevented 6,700 more CRC deaths and required 570,000 additional colonoscopies by 2038. The family history-based screening program increased these numbers to 9,300 and 1,100,000, a 40% and 93% increase, respectively. If biennial gFOBT was replaced with biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), annual Hemoccult Sensa or five-yearly sigmoidoscopy screening, both the added benefits and colonoscopies required would decrease. A biennial gFOBT screening program that identifies individuals with a family history of CRC and recommends them to undergo colonoscopy screening would prevent 40% (range in sensitivity analyses: 20-51%) additional deaths while requiring 93% (range: 43-116%) additional colonoscopies, compared to a regular gFOBT screening program., (© 2015 UICC.)

Purpose: Screening is a major contributor to colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality reductions in the United States but is underused. We estimated the fraction of CRC deaths attributable to nonuse of screening to demonstrate the potential benefits from targeted interventions., Methods: The established microsimulation screening analysis colon model was used to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) in people aged ≥50 years. The model incorporates long-term patterns and effects of screening by age and type of screening test. PAF for 2010 was estimated using currently available data on screening uptake. PAF was also projected assuming constant future screening rates to incorporate lagged effects from past increases in screening uptake. We also computed PAF using Levin's formula to gauge how this simpler approach differs from the model-based approach., Results: There were an estimated 51,500 CRC deaths in 2010, about 63% (N ∼ 32,200) of which were attributable to nonscreening. The PAF decreases slightly to 58% in 2020. Levin's approach yielded a considerably more conservative PAF of 46% (N ∼ 23,600) for 2010., Conclusions: Most of the current United States CRC deaths are attributable to nonscreening. This underscores the potential benefits of increasing screening uptake in the population. Traditional methods of estimating PAF underestimated screening effects compared with model-based approaches., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results., Interventions: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency)., Results: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical., Conclusions and Relevance: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.