Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

PURPOSE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk asymptomatic subjects in the United States aged 50 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS Enrollees in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and approval was obtained from the institutional review board at each site. CT colonography performance estimates from the trial were incorporated into three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network CRC microsimulations. Simulated survival and lifetime costs for screening 50-year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with those for guideline-concordant screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus either sensitive unrehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and no screening. Perfect and reduced screening adherence scenarios were considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits were estimated from the U.S. health care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate. RESULTS CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in all three models in both 100% and 50% adherence scenarios. Colonoscopy also was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy, except in the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-year gained). CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals and colonoscopy were net beneficial compared with no screening in all model scenarios. The 5-year screening interval was net beneficial over the 10-year interval except in the MISCAN model when assuming 100% adherence and willingness to pay $50,000 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective than non-CT colonographic screening but net beneficial compared with no screening given model assumptions.

[1]  J. Savarino,et al.  Bayesian Calibration of Microsimulation Models , 2009, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[2]  L. Tanoue Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[3]  J. Yee,et al.  Accuracy of ct colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers , 2009 .

[4]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  Amy B. Knudsen,et al.  Evaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  P. Maisonneuve,et al.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps. , 2008, Gastroenterology.

[7]  L. Seeff,et al.  Colorectal Cancer Test Use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey , 2008, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[8]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology * † , 2008, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[11]  E. Arias,et al.  United States life tables, 2004. , 2007, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[12]  M. Macari,et al.  Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with and preferences for computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy. , 2007, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[13]  Angelo Zullo,et al.  Cost‐effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography , 2007, Cancer.

[14]  G. Triadafilopoulos,et al.  Perforation Risk Following Colonoscopy: Small But Significant, and On the Rise , 2007 .

[15]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  The Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography in Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia , 2007, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[16]  G. Gazelle,et al.  Use of modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  Neal J Meropol,et al.  Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  J. Brodersen,et al.  Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening , 2007, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[19]  Amy B. Knudsen,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of DNA Stool Testing to Screen for Colorectal Cancer , 2007 .

[20]  J. Fletcher,et al.  Making sense of CT colonography-related complication rates. , 2006, Gastroenterology.

[21]  A. McCullough,et al.  Afternoon Colonoscopies Have Higher Failure Rates than Morning Colonoscopies , 2006, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[22]  B. Shadbolt,et al.  Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: a population-based screening study , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[23]  J. Iglehart,et al.  The new era of medical imaging--progress and pitfalls. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  Robert H Fletcher,et al.  Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance after Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society * , † , 2006, Gastroenterology.

[25]  P. Pickhardt Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. , 2006, Radiology.

[26]  P. Pickhardt Incidence of Significant Complications At CT Colonography: Collective Experience of the Working Group On Virtual Colonoscopy , 2006 .

[27]  J. Yee,et al.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. , 2005, Radiology.

[28]  E. Paulson,et al.  Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison , 2005, The Lancet.

[29]  J. Brodersen,et al.  Validity of short-term consequences of cancer prevention and screening activities? , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  Deborah Schrag,et al.  The price tag on progress--chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  A. Fendrick,et al.  Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact? , 2004, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[32]  Michelle L. Klosterman,et al.  Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. , 2004, Preventive medicine.

[33]  J. Burdick,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. , 2004, JAMA.

[34]  W. Lawrence,et al.  Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[36]  J. Yee,et al.  Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[37]  C. Johnson,et al.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[38]  C. Johnson,et al.  Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[39]  L. Weinstock,et al.  Patient Preferences for CT Colonography, Conventional Colonoscopy, and Bowel Preparation , 2003, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[40]  A. Neugut,et al.  Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[41]  Milton C Weinstein,et al.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. , 2003, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[42]  D. Mark Visualizing cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2002, JAMA.

[43]  E. Svensson,et al.  Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. , 2002, Radiology.

[44]  Michael Pignone,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. , 2002, Annals of internal medicine.

[45]  R. Mendelson,et al.  Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs. , 2001 .

[46]  R. Mendelson,et al.  Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs , 2001, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[47]  J. Yee,et al.  Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. , 2001, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[48]  S D Wall,et al.  Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. , 2001, Radiology.

[49]  J G Fletcher,et al.  Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. , 2000, Radiology.

[50]  J D Habbema,et al.  Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[51]  Peter Bauerfeind,et al.  Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? , 1999, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[52]  Rob Boer,et al.  The MISCAN-COLON Simulation Model for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening , 1999, Comput. Biomed. Res..

[53]  John C. Hershey,et al.  Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[54]  A A Stinnett,et al.  Net Health Benefits , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[55]  J. Olsen,et al.  Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test , 1996, The Lancet.

[56]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1996, JAMA.

[57]  M. Vatn,et al.  Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. , 1996, Gut.

[58]  S. Moss,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer , 1989, The Lancet.

[59]  L M Schuman,et al.  Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[60]  P. J. Young,et al.  Predictors of presence, multiplicity, size and dysplasia of colorectal adenomas. A necropsy study in New Zealand. , 1992, Gut.

[61]  N. O. Jacobsen,et al.  Polyps of the large intestine in Aarhus, Denmark. An autopsy study. , 1989, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[62]  J. Bombí,et al.  Polyps of the colon in barcelona, Spain. An autopsy study , 1988, Cancer.

[63]  S. Stryker,et al.  Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. , 1987, Gastroenterology.

[64]  Yrjö Collan,et al.  Prevalence of polyps in an autopsy series from areas with varying incidence of large‐bowel cancer , 1985, International journal of cancer.

[65]  D W Day,et al.  Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. , 1982, Gut.

[66]  M. Vatn,et al.  The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: An autopsy study , 1982, Cancer.

[67]  E. C. Hammond,et al.  Adenomatous lesions of the large bowel: An autopsy survey , 1979, Cancer.

[68]  T C ARMINSKI,et al.  Incidence and distribution of adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum based on 1,000 autopsy examinations , 1964, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[69]  J S SPRATT,et al.  THE RATES AND PATTERNS OF GROWTH OF 375 TUMORS OF THE LARGE INTESTINE AND RECTUM OBSERVED SERIALLY BY DOUBLE CONTRAST ENEMA STUDY (MALMOE TECHNIQUE). , 1963, The American journal of roentgenology, radium therapy, and nuclear medicine.

[70]  I CHAPMAN,et al.  Adenomatous Polypi of Large Intestine: Incidence and Distribution , 1963, Annals of surgery.

[71]  Lester J. Blatt,et al.  Polyps of the colon and rectum , 1961 .