To identify the most useful areas for research in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by using a value-of-information analysis.
Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies, including colonoscopy, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema examination, were compared by using a Markov model. Monetary net benefit (NB), a measure of cost-effectiveness, was calculated by multiplying effect (life-years gained) by willingness to pay (100,000 dollars per life-year gained) and subtracting cost. A value-of-information analysis was used to estimate the expected benefit of future research that would eliminate the decision uncertainty.
In the reference-case analysis, colonoscopy was the optimal test with the highest NB (1945 dollars per subject invited for screening compared with 1862 dollars, 1717 dollars, and 1653 dollars for CT colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema examination, respectively). Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that colonoscopy was the optimal choice in only 45% of the simulated scenarios, whereas CT colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema examination were the optimal strategies in 23%, 16%, and 15% of the scenarios, respectively. Only two parameters were responsible for most of this uncertainty about the optimal test for CRC screening: the increase in adherence with less invasive tests and CRC natural history. The expected societal monetary benefit of further research in these areas was estimated to be more than 15 billion dollars.
Results of value-of-information analysis show that future research on the optimal test for CRC screening has a large societal impact. Priority should be given to research on the increase in adherence with screening by using less invasive tests and to better understanding of the natural history of CRC.
"Detected polyps were grouped into a single state or two or three depending on number and size of polyps found at baseline COL [30,42,65,76]. Modelled disease states of CRC were mainly local, regional or distant (disseminated) (CRC or Dukes’ stages A to D). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness evidence, and to provide a critical appraisal of the methods used in the model-based economic evaluation of CRC screening and subsequent surveillance. A search strategy was developed to capture relevant evidence published 1999-November 2012. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation (NHS EED), EconLit, and HTA. Full economic evaluations that considered costs and health outcomes of relevant intervention were included. Sixty-eight studies which used either cohort simulation or individual-level simulation were included. Follow-up strategies were mostly embedded in the screening model. Approximately 195 comparisons were made across different modalities; however, strategies modelled were often simplified due to insufficient evidence and comparators chosen insufficiently reflected current practice/recommendations. Studies used up-to-date evidence on the diagnostic test performance combined with outdated information on CRC treatments. Quality of life relating to follow-up surveillance is rare. Quality of life relating to CRC disease states was largely taken from a single study. Some studies omitted to say how identified adenomas or CRC were managed. Besides deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken in some studies, but the distributions used for PSA were rarely reported or justified. The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies among people with confirmed adenomas are warranted in aiding evidence-informed decision making in response to the rapidly evolving technologies and rising expectations.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: For improving the wall shear stress measurement in a fluid stream,
a new procedure for calibration of the “triangular probe” is
developed. This new procedure allows to have thinner probes, completely
submerged into the viscous sublayer, thus it is less intrusive and
reduces the experimental perturbations. Comparisons to numerical results
on an airfoil surface confirm the validity of this new procedure
Instrumentation in Aerospace Simulation Facilities, 1997. ICIASF '97 Record., International Congress on; 01/1997
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A "resect and discard" policy has been proposed for diminutive polyps detected by screening colonoscopy, because hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps can be distinguished, in vivo, by using narrow-band imaging (NBI). We modeled the cost-effectiveness of this policy.
Markov modeling was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal pathology evaluations with a resect and discard policy for colonoscopy screening. In a resect and discard approach, diminutive lesions (≤5 mm), classified by endoscopy with high confidence, were not analyzed by a pathologist. Base case assumptions of an 84% rate of high-confidence classification, with a sensitivity and specificity for adenomas of 94% and 89%, respectively, were used. Census data were used to project outputs of the model onto the US population, assuming 23% as the current rate of adherence to a colonoscopy screening.
With universal referral of resected polyps to pathology, colonoscopy screening costs an estimated $3222/person, with a gain of 51 days/person. Endoscopic polypectomy accounted for $179/person, of which $46/person was related to pathology examination. Adoption of a resect and discard policy for eligible diminutive polyps resulted in a savings of $25/person, without any meaningful effect on screening efficacy. Projected onto the US population, this approach would result in an undiscounted annual savings of $33 million. In the sensitivity analysis, the rate of high-confidence diagnosis and the accuracy for endoscopic polyp determination were the most meaningful variables.
In a simulation model, a resect and discard strategy for diminutive polyps detected by screening colonoscopy resulted in a substantial economic benefit without an impact on efficacy.
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 10/2010; 8(10):865-9, 869.e1-3. DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018 · 7.90 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.