Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Computerized tomographic (CT) colonography is a potential alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Its main advantage, a better safety profile, may be offset by its limitations: lower sensitivity, need for colonoscopy in cases where results are positive, and expense.

Methods

We performed an economic evaluation, using decision analysis, to compare CT colonography with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 50 years of age. Three-year outcomes included number of colonoscopies, perforations and adenomas removed; deaths from perforation and from colorectal cancer from missed adenomas; and direct health care costs. The expected prevalence of adenomas, test performance characteristics of CT colonography and colonoscopy, and probability of colonoscopy complications and cancer from missed adenomas were derived from the literature. Costs were determined in detail locally.

Results

Using the base-case assumptions, a strategy of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening would cost 2.27 million dollars extra per 100,000 patients screened; 3.78 perforation-related deaths would be avoided, but 4.11 extra deaths would occur from missed adenomas. Because screening with CT colonography would cost more and result in more deaths overall compared with colonoscopy, the latter remained the dominant strategy. Our results were sensitive to CT colonography's test performance characteristics, the malignant risk of missed adenomas, the risk of perforation and related death, the procedural costs and differences in screening adherence.

Interpretation

At present, CT colonography cannot be recommended as a primary means of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Canada.

SUBMITTER: Heitman SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1247700 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Heitman Steven J SJ Manns Braden J BJ Hilsden Robert J RJ Fong Andrew A Dean Stafford S Romagnuolo Joseph J

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20051001 8

<h4>Background</h4>Computerized tomographic (CT) colonography is a potential alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Its main advantage, a better safety profile, may be offset by its limitations: lower sensitivity, need for colonoscopy in cases where results are positive, and expense.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed an economic evaluation, using decision analysis, to compare CT colonography with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 50 years of age. Three-y ...[more]

PMID: 16217110

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considered whether to reimburse computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening of Medicare enrollees. To help inform its decision, we evaluated the reimbursement rate at which CTC screening could be cost-effective compared with the colorectal cancer screening tests that are currently reimbursed by CMS and are included in most colorectal cancer screening guidelines, namely annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years in conjunction with annual FOBT, and colonoscopy every 10 years.MethodsWe used three independently developed microsimulation models to assess the health outcomes and costs associated with CTC screening and with currently reimbursed colorectal cancer screening tests among the average-risk Medicare population. We assumed that CTC was performed every 5 years (using test characteristics from either a Department of Defense CTC study or the National CTC Trial) and that individuals with findings of 6 mm or larger were referred to colonoscopy. We computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the currently reimbursed screening tests and calculated the maximum cost per scan (ie, the threshold cost) for the CTC strategy to lie on the efficient frontier. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters and assumptions.ResultsAssuming perfect adherence with all tests, the undiscounted number life-years gained from CTC screening ranged from 143 to 178 per 1000 65-year-olds, which was slightly less than the number of life-years gained from 10-yearly colonoscopy (152-185 per 1000 65-year-olds) and comparable to that from 5-yearly sigmoidoscopy with annual FOBT (149-177 per 1000 65-year-olds). If CTC screening was reimbursed at $488 per scan (slightly less than the reimbursement for a colonoscopy without polypectomy), it would be the most costly strategy. CTC screening could be cost-effective at $108-$205 per scan, depending on the microsimulation model used. Sensitivity analyses showed that if relative adherence to CTC screening was 25% higher than adherence to other tests, it could be cost-effective if reimbursed at $488 per scan.ConclusionsCTC could be a cost-effective option for colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees if the reimbursement rate per scan is substantially less than that for colonoscopy or if a large proportion of otherwise unscreened persons were to undergo screening by CTC.

Project description:In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

Project description:BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.MethodsUsing retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.ResultsIn 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.ConclusionsThe use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.ObjectiveTo estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.InterventionInvitation to endoscopic screening.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.ResultsThis analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets