Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals. METHODS: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG. RESULTS: Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test. CONCLUSIONS: By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.

Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. METHODS: We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. RESULTS: Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. INTERPRETATION: Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

State disparities in colorectal cancer rates: Contributions of risk factors, screening, and survival differences.

BACKGROUND: Northeastern states of the United States have shown more progress in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates than Southern states, and this has resulted in considerable disparities. This study quantified how the disparities in CRC rates between Louisiana (a Southern state) and New Jersey (a Northeastern state) would be affected if differences in risk factors, screening, and stage-specific CRC relative survival between the states were eliminated. METHODS: This study used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon microsimulation model to estimate age-adjusted CRC incidence and mortality rates in Louisiana from 1995 to 2009 under the assumption that 1) Louisiana had the same smoking and obesity prevalence observed in New Jersey, 2) Louisiana had the same CRC screening uptake observed in New Jersey, 3) Louisiana had the same stage-specific CRC relative survival observed in New Jersey, or 4) all the preceding were true. RESULTS: In 2009, the observed CRC incidence and mortality rates in Louisiana were 141.4 cases and 61.9 deaths per 100,000 individuals, respectively. With the same risk factors and screening observed in New Jersey, the CRC incidence rate in Louisiana was reduced by 3.5% and 15.2%, respectively. New Jersey's risk factors, screening, and survival reduced the CRC mortality rate in Louisiana by 3.0%, 10.8%, and 17.4%, respectively. With all trends combined, the modeled rates per 100,000 individuals in Louisiana became lower than the observed rates in New Jersey for both incidence (116.4 vs 130.0) and mortality (44.7 vs 55.8). CONCLUSIONS: The disparities in CRC incidence and mortality rates between Louisiana and New Jersey could be eliminated if Louisiana could attain New Jersey's levels of risk factors, screening, and survival. Priority should be given to enabling Southern states to improve screening and survival rates.

Colorectal cancer deaths attributable to nonuse of screening in the United States.

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.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: The sensitivity and specificity of a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are limited. The performance of FIT screening can be improved by increasing the screening frequency or by providing more than one sample in each screening round. This study aimed to evaluate if two-sample FIT screening is cost-effective compared with one-sample FIT. DESIGN: The MISCAN-colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and benefits of strategies with either one or two-sample FIT screening. The FIT cut-off level varied between 50 and 200 ng haemoglobin/ml, and the screening schedule was varied with respect to age range and interval. In addition, different definitions for positivity of the two-sample FIT were considered: at least one positive sample, two positive samples, or the mean of both samples being positive. RESULTS: Within an exemplary screening strategy, biennial FIT from the age of 55-75 years, one-sample FIT provided 76.0-97.0 life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals, at a cost of € 259,000-264,000 (range reflects different FIT cut-off levels). Two-sample FIT screening with at least one sample being positive provided 7.3-12.4 additional LYG compared with one-sample FIT at an extra cost of € 50,000-59,000. However, when all screening intervals and age ranges were considered, intensifying screening with one-sample FIT provided equal or more LYG at lower costs compared with two-sample FIT. CONCLUSION: If attendance to screening does not differ between strategies it is recommended to increase the number of screening rounds with one-sample FIT screening, before considering increasing the number of FIT samples provided per screening round.