Dataset Information

Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' barriers against colorectal cancer screening tests and to assess patients' preferences and cost influences for CT colonography (CTC) in a nonadherent urban subpopulation.Patients who had been offered colorectal cancer screening but were nonadherent were asked to participate in this questionnaire study. Patients' demographic information was obtained, and patients' reasons for not being screened were explored. Subjects were given an information sheet that described a CTC procedure and then were asked about their willingness to undergo CTC and about other relevant factors, such as fees.One hundred seventy-five patients were invited to participate; 53 declined and 54 did not respond, which left 68 subjects to be included in the analysis. After being informed about CTC screening, most (83%) subjects stated that they would be willing to undergo a CTC study. However, 70% stated that they would not be willing to pay out-of-pocket fees if insurance did not cover the study, and even among the 30% who were willing to pay the fees, the average amount they were willing to pay (mean, $244; median, $150) was well below currently charged rates.Our study suggests that most nonadherent patients would be willing to undergo CTC as long as out-of-pocket fees are reasonable.

SUBMITTER: Ho W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3717967 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

Ho Wendy W Broughton Darcy E DE Donelan Karen K Gazelle G Scott GS Hur Chin C

AJR. American journal of roentgenology 20100801 2

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' barriers against colorectal cancer screening tests and to assess patients' preferences and cost influences for CT colonography (CTC) in a nonadherent urban subpopulation.<h4>Subjects and methods</h4>Patients who had been offered colorectal cancer screening but were nonadherent were asked to participate in this questionnaire study. Patients' demographic information was obtained, and patients' reasons for not being screened were exp ...[more]

PMID: 20651195

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening.Methods/designAn invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected.DiscussionThis study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739608.

Project description:ObjectivesCT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity.DesignDiscrete choice experiment.SettingOnline, web-based survey.Participants2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants.InterventionsAfter receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps.Primary outcome measuresParticipants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither).ResultsPreparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837).ConclusionsUptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

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:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the morphology, radiological stage, conspicuity, and computer-assisted detection (CAD) characteristics of colorectal cancers (CRC) detected by computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in screening and symptomatic populations.MethodsTwo radiologists independently analyzed CTC images from 133 patients diagnosed with CRC in (a) two randomized trials of symptomatic patients (35 patients with 36 tumours) and (b) a screening program using fecal occult blood testing (FOBt; 98 patients with 100 tumours), measuring tumour length, volume, morphology, radiological stage, and subjective conspicuity. A commercial CAD package was applied to both datasets. We compared CTC characteristics between screening and symptomatic populations with multivariable regression.ResultsScreen-detected CRC were significantly smaller (mean 3.0 vs 4.3 cm, p?<?0.001), of lower volume (median 9.1 vs 23.2 cm3, p?<?0.001) and more frequently polypoid (34/100, 34 % vs. 5/36, 13.9 %, p?=?0.02) than symptomatic CRC. They were of earlier stage than symptomatic tumours (OR?=?0.17, 95 %CI 0.07-0.41, p?<?0.001), and were judged as significantly less conspicuous (mean conspicuity 54.1/100 vs. 72.8/100, p?<?0.001). CAD detection was significantly lower for screen-detected (77.4 %; 95 %CI 67.9-84.7 %) than symptomatic CRC (96.9 %; 95 %CI 83.8-99.4 %, p?=?0.02).ConclusionsScreen-detected CRC are significantly smaller, more frequently polypoid, subjectively less conspicuous, and less likely to be identified by CAD than those in symptomatic patients.Key points• Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRC) are significantly smaller than symptomatic CRC. • Screening cases are significantly less conspicuous to radiologists than symptomatic tumours. • Screen-detected CRC have different morphology compared to symptomatic tumours (more polypoid, fewer annular). • A commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) system was significantly less likely to note screen-detected CRC.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected by CT colonography using deep learning.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis of an average risk colorectal cancer screening sample, polyps of all size categories and morphologies were manually segmented on supine and prone CT colonography images and classified as premalignant (adenoma) or benign (hyperplastic polyp or regular mucosa) according to histopathology. Two deep learning models SEG and noSEG were trained on 3D CT colonography image subvolumes to predict polyp class, and model SEG was additionally trained with polyp segmentation masks. Diagnostic performance was validated in an independent external multicentre test sample. Predictions were analysed with the visualisation technique Grad-CAM++.ResultsThe training set consisted of 107 colorectal polyps in 63 patients (mean age: 63 ± 8 years, 40 men) comprising 169 polyp segmentations. The external test set included 77 polyps in 59 patients comprising 118 polyp segmentations. Model SEG achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.83 and 80% sensitivity at 69% specificity for differentiating premalignant from benign polyps. Model noSEG yielded a ROC-AUC of 0.75, 80% sensitivity at 44% specificity, and an average Grad-CAM++ heatmap score of ≥ 0.25 in 90% of polyp tissue.ConclusionsIn this proof-of-concept study, deep learning enabled the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected with CT colonography and the visualisation of image regions important for predictions. The approach did not require polyp segmentation and thus has the potential to facilitate the identification of high-risk polyps as an automated second reader.Key points• Non-invasive deep learning image analysis may differentiate premalignant from benign colorectal polyps found in CT colonography scans. • Deep learning autonomously learned to focus on polyp tissue for predictions without the need for prior polyp segmentation by experts. • Deep learning potentially improves the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening by allowing for a more precise selection of patients who would benefit from endoscopic polypectomy, especially for patients with polyps of 6-9 mm size.

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.

Dataset Information

Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

Publications

Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets