Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness of using Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) as an initial diagnostic investigation for patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of malignancy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There has been an increase in the numbers of patients presenting to primary care with suspected colorectal malignancy and subsequently an increase in demand for endoscopy. This study aims to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) compared to conventional diagnostic tests as a primary investigation for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy.

Methods

Retrospectively, 1950 patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy who were referred through primary care and underwent investigations through standard endoscopic evaluation were included. These patients were used to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing creating theoretical data for sensitivity and specificity. Outcome measures included: the number of investigations under current protocol; cost of current investigations; number of predicted false negatives and false positives and positive/negative predictive values using current sensitivity data for FIT; the cost forecast of using FIT as the primary investigation for colorectal malignancy.

Results

Median age was 65 (IQR 47-82) with 43.7% male and 56.3% female. A total of 1950 investigations were carried out with a diagnostic yield of 26 cancers (18 colon, 8 rectal), 138 polyps and 29 high risk adenomas (HGD ± > 10 mm). In total, £713,948 was spent on the investigations. The commonest investigation was colonoscopy totalling £533,169. The total cost per cancer diagnosis was £27,459. Sensitivity (92.1% CI 86.9-95.3) and specificity (85.8% CI 78.3-90.1) for FIT in colorectal cancer was taken from NICE and was costed via the manufacturer(s). The projected total cost of FIT for the same population using a ≥ 4 μg haemoglobin cut off was £415,680 (£15,554 per cancer). The total cost of high-risk polyps using ≥ 4 μg cut off was £404,427 (sensitivity 71.2% CI 60.5-87.2, specificity 79.8%CI 76.1-83.7) or £13,945 per polyp.

Conclusions

FIT is a cheaper and effective alternative test with the potential to replace current expensive methods. The forecast is based on the limited data available for sensitivity/specificity in the current literature. FIT has now been commenced for symptomatic patients in the UK and therefore sensitivity may change in the future.

SUBMITTER: Kearsey CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8117514 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer disease resulting in an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Herein, findings are reported from an emergency clinical service implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing faecal immunochemical testing ('FIT') in Lynch syndrome patients to prioritize colonoscopy while endoscopy services were limited.MethodsAn emergency service protocol was designed to improve colonoscopic surveillance access throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in England for people with Lynch syndrome when services were extremely restricted (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2021) and promoted by the English National Health Service. Requests for faecal immunochemical testing from participating centres were sent to the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub and a faecal immunochemical testing kit, faecal immunochemical testing instructions, paper-based survey, and pre-paid return envelope were sent to patients. Reports with faecal haemoglobin results were returned electronically for clinical action. Risk stratification for colonoscopy was as follows: faecal haemoglobin less than 10 µg of haemoglobin/g of faeces (µg/g)-scheduled within 6-12 weeks; and faecal haemoglobin greater than or equal to 10 µg/g-triaged via an urgent suspected cancer clinical pathway. Primary outcomes of interest included the identification of highest-risk Lynch syndrome patients and determining the impact of faecal immunochemical testing in risk-stratified colonoscopic surveillance.ResultsFifteen centres participated from June 2020 to March 2021. Uptake was 68.8 per cent amongst 558 patients invited. For 339 eligible participants analysed, 279 (82.3 per cent) had faecal haemoglobin less than 10 µg/g and 60 (17.7 per cent) had faecal haemoglobin greater than or equal to 10 µg/g. In the latter group, the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical testing was 65.9 per cent and escalation to colonoscopy was facilitated (median 49 versus 122 days, χ2 = 0.0003, P < 0.001).ConclusionFaecal immunochemical testing demonstrated clinical value for Lynch syndrome patients requiring colorectal cancer surveillance during the pandemic in this descriptive report of an emergency COVID-19 response service. Further longitudinal investigation on faecal immunochemical testing efficacy in Lynch syndrome is warranted and will be examined under the 'FIT for Lynch' study (ISRCTN15740250).

Project description:BackgroundMailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit.MethodsThe authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty.ResultsThe anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened.ConclusionsThe reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.