Dataset Information

Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

ABSTRACT: To compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC).We performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ? 66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences in total inpatient and outpatient Medicare costs 1 year after initial CTC or OC and differences in outpatient testing of potential findings in the colon, abdomen, pelvis, and lungs.Higher adjusted costs per patient were revealed in the year after initial CTC compared to initial OC for outpatient testing related to potential colonic ($50; 95% confidence interval [CI], $12-$88; P = .010) and extracolonic findings ($64; 95% CI, $23-$106; P = .002). However, there were no differences in adjusted total costs per patient in the year after either modality ($2065; 95% CI, $1672-$5803; P = .28). Similarly, adjusted costs did not differ between cohorts for inpatient ($267; 95% CI, $1017-$1550; P = .68) or outpatient care ($2828; 95% CI, $311-$5966; P = .08).Despite higher adjusted costs of outpatient testing potentially related to colonic and extracolonic findings among asymptomatic elderly patients 1 year after initial CTC compared to OC, we found no differences in adjusted total, inpatient, or outpatient costs between cohorts. Although Medicare does not cover screening CTC, our results suggest that these modalities generate comparable downstream costs to payers.

SUBMITTER: Zafar HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4418202 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Zafar Hanna M HM Yang Jianing J Armstrong Katrina K Groeneveld Peter P

Academic radiology 20150415 7

<h4>Rationale and objectives</h4>To compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ≥ 66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences i ...[more]

PMID: 25890873

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Concerns about the risk of bowel perforation for same-day computed tomography colonography (CTC) following an incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy may lead to unnecessarily postponing the CTC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to describe the complications including colon perforations associated with same-day CTC in a cohort who had polypectomies but an incomplete colonoscopy. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study. SETTING: Our study took place in a single, tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: We studied consecutive patients who had CTC the same day as an incomplete colonoscopy with polypectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included optical colonoscopy (OC), endoscopic polypectomies, and same-day CTC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Our main outcome measurements included perforation rate with long-term follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3% of patients undergoing colonoscopy from January 2008 to December 2012 had same-day CTC following incomplete OC, and 72 polypectomies were performed in 34 (or 17%) of these patients. Incomplete colonoscopies were due to colon tortuosity and looping (25), severe angulations (five), colon mass (two), colon stenosis (one), bradycardia (one). Fifty-three percent of the OCs were screening for colon neoplasia, 29% diagnostic and 18% were surveillance of colon polyps. Most polyps were ≤ 5 mm, and found in the left colon. There were no reported complications or perforations associated with same-day CTCs during short- and long-term follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of our analysis included retrospective single-center design, small number of patients for the occurrence, referral to same-day CTC was not standardized, inability to establish safety of CTC for specific scenarios such as after complex polypectomies, strictures, or advanced IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists' apprehension to perform a CTC the same day as an incomplete colonoscopy following polypectomies because of perceived risk of perforation may be unfounded. More data are needed to determine the safety of same-day CTC in patients with high-risk findings during colonoscopy such as a stricture, severe IBD, and after complex polypectomies.

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:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer detection.Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The primary data source was the results of a detailed PubMed search from 1994 to 2009. Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were assessed by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, in particular requiring both OC and histologic confirmation of disease. Studies that also included a mechanism to assess true-positive versus false-negative diagnoses at OC (eg, segmental unblinding) were used to calculate OC sensitivity. Assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Potential bias was ascertained by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged. Forest plots of per-patient sensitivity were produced on the basis of random-effect models. Potential bias across primary studies was assessed by using the I(2) statistic. Original study authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary.Forty-nine studies provided data on 11,151 patients with a cumulative colorectal cancer prevalence of 3.6% (414 cancers). The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of 414; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.8%, 97.7%). No heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%) was detected. No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents were combined in the bowel preparation. The sensitivity of OC for colorectal cancer, derived from a subset of 25 studies including 9223 patients, was 94.7% (178 of 188; 95% CI: 90.4%, 97.2%). A moderate degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 50%) was present.CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, especially when both cathartic and tagging agents are combined in the bowel preparation. Given the relatively low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial investigation of suspected colorectal cancer, assuming reasonable specificity.http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101887/-/DC1.

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.

Dataset Information

Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Publications

Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets