Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of a Hybrid Screening Strategy for Colorectal Cancer.

Archimedes Inc. Electronic address: .
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association (Impact Factor: 6.53). 03/2013; 11(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.03.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend screening schedules for each single type of test, except for concurrent sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT). We investigated the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy, based on a fecal immunological test (FIT) and colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using the Archimedes Model to evaluate the effects of different CRC screening strategies on health outcomes and costs related to CRC in a population that represents members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The Archimedes Model is a large-scale simulation of human physiology, diseases, interventions, and health care systems. The CRC submodel in the Archimedes Model was derived from public databases, published epidemiologic studies, and clinical trials. RESULTS: A hybrid screening strategy led to substantial reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and reductions in costs, comparable to those of the best single-test strategies. Screening by annual FIT of patients 50-65 years old and a then a single colonoscopy when they are 66 years old (FIT/COLO x1) reduced CRC incidence by 72% and gained 110 QALYs for every 1000 people over a period of 30 years, compared with no screening. Compared with annual FIT, FIT/COLOx1 gained 1,400 QALYs/100,000 persons, at an incremental cost of $9,700/QALY gained, and required 55% fewer FITs. Compared with FIT/COLOx1, colonoscopy at 10-year intervals gained 500 QALYs/100,000 at an incremental cost of $35,100/QALY gained, but required 37% more colonoscopies. Over the ranges of parameters examined, the cost-effectiveness of hybrid screening strategies was slightly more sensitive to the adherence rate with colonoscopy than the adherence rate with yearly FIT. Uncertainties associated with estimates of FIT performance within a program setting and sensitivities for flat and right-sided lesions are expected to have significant impacts on the cost-effectiveness results. CONCLUSION: In our simulation model, a strategy of annual or biennial FIT, beginning when patients are 50 years old, with a single colonoscopy when they are 66 years old, delivers clinical and economic outcomes similar to those of CRC screening by single-modality strategies, with a favorable impact on resources demand.

  • Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 05/2013; 11(9). DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.041 · 6.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66–90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.
    Frontiers in Public Health 10/2014; 210(2). DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00210
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several screening methods for colorectal cancer (crc) are available, and some have been shown by randomized trials to be effective. In the present study, we used a well-developed population health simulation model to compare the risks and benefits of a variety of screening scenarios. Tests considered were the fecal occult blood test (fobt), the fecal immunochemical test (fit), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. Outcomes considered included years of life gained, crc cases and deaths prevented, and direct health system costs. A natural history model of crc was implemented and calibrated to specified targets within the framework of the Cancer Risk Management Model (crmm) from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The crmm-crc permits users to enter their own parameter values or to use program-specified base values. For each of 23 screening scenarios, we used the crmm-crc to run 10 million replicate simulations. Using base parameter values and some user-specified values in the crmm-crc, and comparing our screening scenarios with no screening, all screening scenarios were found to reduce the incidence of and mortality from crc. The fobt was the least effective test; it was not associated with lower net cost. Colonoscopy screening was the most effective test; it had net costs comparable to those for several other strategies considered, but required more than 3 times the colonoscopy resources needed by other approaches. After colonoscopy, strategies based on the fit were predicted to be the most effective. In sensitivity analyses performed for the fobt and fit screening strategies, fobt parameter values associated with high-sensitivity formulations were associated with a substantial increase in test effectiveness. The fit was more cost-effective at the 50 ng/mL threshold than at the 100 ng/mL threshold. The crmm-crc provides a sophisticated and flexible environment in which to evaluate crc control options. All screening scenarios considered in this study effectively reduced crc mortality, although sensitivity analyses demonstrated some uncertainty in the magnitude of the improvements. Where possible, local data should be used to reduce uncertainty in the parameters.
    Current Oncology 04/2015; 22(2):e41-50. DOI:10.3747/co.22.2013 · 1.64 Impact Factor

tuan dinh