Financial Hardship Among Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The degree of cancer patients' financial hardship is dynamic and can change over time. Objective: To assess longitudinal changes in financial hardship among patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, English-speaking adult patients with a new diagnosis of stage I to III colorectal cancer being treated with curative intent at National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices between May 2018 and July 2020 and who had not started chemotherapy and/or radiation were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed surveys at baseline as well as at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after enrollment. Cost-related care nonadherence and material hardship, as adopted by Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, were measured. Factors associated with financial hardship were assessed using longitudinal multivariable logistic regression models with time interaction. Results: A total of 451 patients completed baseline questions, with 217 (48.1%) completing the 24-month follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 61.0 (12.0) years (210 [46.6%] female; 33 [7.3%] Black, 380 [84.3%] White, and 33 [7.3%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, multiracial, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals or those who did not report race or who had unknown race). Among 217 patients with data at baseline and 24 months, 19 (8.8%) reported cost-related care nonadherence at baseline vs 20 (9.2%) at 24 months (P = .84), and 125 (57.6%) reported material hardship at baseline vs 76 (35.0%) at 24 months (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, lower financial worry (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), higher education (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77), and older age (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) were associated with lower nonadherence. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with higher material hardship (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.15-6.29), while lower financial worry was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). Over 24 months, female sex was associated with lower nonadherence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96), while higher education was associated with higher nonadherence (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17). Being employed was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93), while receipt of care at safety-net hospitals was associated with higher hardship (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, material hardship was more common than cost-related cancer care nonadherence and decreased over time, while nonadherence remained unchanged. Early and longitudinal financial screening and referral to intervention are recommended to mitigate financial hardship.

Cost-benefit analysis and short-term outcomes after implementing an ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has become increasingly popular in the post-operative management of abdominal surgery. Published data suggest that patients on ERAS protocols have fewer minor and major complications, and highlight a reduction in medical morbidity (such as urinary and respiratory infections). Limited data is available on surgical complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the ERAS protocol on post-operative complications and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the impact of this protocol on cost-effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2022, 532 colectomies for colorectal cancer (CRC) were performed. A prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary hospital on the cohort of patients, aged 18 years and older, operated on for non-urgent colorectal cancer. The impact on post-operative complications, hospital stay and economic impact was analysed in two groups: patients managed under ERAS and non-ERAS protocol. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed between the two groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching 1:1, each cohort included 71 patients, and clinicopathological characteristics were well balanced in terms of tumour type, surgical technique and surgical approach. ERAS patients experienced fewer infectious complications and a shorter postoperative stay (p < 0.001). In particular, they had an 8.5% reduction in anastomotic dehiscence (p = 0.012) and surgical wound infections (p = 0.029). After analysis of medical complications, no statistically significant differences were identified in urinary tract infections, pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding or sepsis. ERAS protocol was more efficient and cost-effective than the control group, with an overall savings of 37,673.44€. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for elective colorectal surgery in a tertiary hospital was cost-effective and associated with a reduction in post-operative complications, especially infectious complications.

The Annual Cost of Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer has substantial health, quality-of-life, and economic impacts. Screening may decrease cancer mortality and treatment costs, but the cost of screening in the United States is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual cost of initial cancer screening (that is, screening without follow-up costs) in the United States in 2021. DESIGN: Model using national health care survey and cost resources data. SETTING: U.S. health care systems and institutions. PARTICIPANTS: People eligible for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening with available data. MEASUREMENTS: The number of people screened and associated health care system costs by insurance status in 2021 dollars. RESULTS: Total health care system costs for initial cancer screenings in the United States in 2021 were estimated at $43 billion. Approximately 88.3% of costs were attributable to private insurance; 8.5% to Medicare; and 3.2% to Medicaid, other government programs, and uninsured persons. Screening for colorectal cancer represented approximately 64% of the total cost; screening colonoscopy represented about 55% of the total. Facility costs (amounts paid to facilities where testing occurred) were major drivers of the total estimated costs of screening. LIMITATIONS: All data on receipt of cancer screening are based on self-report from national health care surveys. Estimates do not include costs of follow-up for positive or abnormal screening results. Variations in costs based on geography and provider or health care organization are not fully captured. CONCLUSION: The $43 billion estimated annual cost for initial cancer screening in the United States in 2021 is less than the reported annual cost of cancer treatment in the United States in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Identification of cancer screening costs and their drivers is critical to help inform policy and develop programmatic priorities, particularly for enhancing access to recommended cancer screening services. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Disparities in outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in colorectal cancer screening have been documented among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). However, surgical outcomes in this population have yet to be studied. The present work aimed to evaluate the association of IDD with outcomes following colorectal cancer resection. METHODS: All adults undergoing resection for colorectal cancer in the 2011-2020 National Inpatient Sample were identified. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were developed to examine the association of IDD with risk factors as well as outcomes including mortality, complications, costs, length of stay (LOS), and non-home discharge. The study is limited by its retrospective nature and did not capture disease staging or time of diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 722,736 patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection, 2,846 (0.39%) had IDD. Compared to patients without IDD, IDD patients were younger and had a higher burden of comorbidities. IDD status was associated with increased odds of non-elective admission (AOR 1.40 [95% CI 1.14-1.73]) and decreased odds of treatment at high-volume centers (AOR 0.64 [95% CI 0.51-0.81]). Furthermore, IDD patients experienced significantly greater LOS (9 vs 6 days, p<0.001) and hospitalization costs ($23,500 vs $19,800, p<0.001) relative to neurotypical patients. Upon risk adjustment, IDD was significantly associated with 2-fold increased odds of mortality (AOR 2.34 [95% CI 1.48-3.71]), 1.4-fold increase in complications (AOR 1.41 [95% CI 1.15-1.74]), and 6.8-fold increase in non-home discharge (AOR 6.83 [95% CI 5.46-8.56]). CONCLUSIONS: IDD patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection experience increased likelihood of non-elective admission, adverse clinical outcomes, and resource use. Our findings highlight the need for more accessible screening and patient-centered interventions to improve quality of surgical care for this at-risk population.

Identifying the factors affecting financial toxicity status in patients with middle and advanced colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as the second most prevalent type of cancer in China. The financial implications of treatment are a significant factor to be taken into account for patients diagnosed with middle and advanced stages of colorectal cancer (III-IV CRC). The research aims to explore current financial toxicity (FT) conditions and analyze factors that may influence it in patients with middle and advanced CRC. Method: This is a cross-sectional survey. The participants of the study were individuals diagnosed with middle and advanced colorectal cancer who were admitted to the hospital between January and June 2023. The cross-sectional survey utilized a variety of instruments, including a general information questionnaire, a cancer patient report outcome economic toxicity scale, a medical coping style questionnaire, an Anderson symptom assessment scale, a disease shame scale, and a social support scale. Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to examine the factors influencing FT. Result: A cohort of 264 patients diagnosed with stage III-IV CRC were included in the study. The majority of patients with intermediate and advanced CRC (87.1%, n = 230) reported experiencing substantial financial strain. Multivariate analysis revealed that factors influencing FT included low family monthly income, out-of-pocket expenses, unemployment, undergoing surgical treatment, the level of stigma, and the severity of symptoms (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients with stage III-IV cancer (CRC) demonstrate increased levels of financial toxicity (FT), a common occurrence in individuals with moderate to severe CRC. In patients with stage III-IV CRC, the presence of FT is correlated with various factors including family monthly income, medical payment methods, work status, surgical treatment, stigma levels, and symptom severity. These characteristics may serve as influencing factors for subsequent treatment decisions.

Low neighborhood socioeconomic status is associated with poor outcomes in young adults with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer has increased markedly over the past decade. Although established for older adults, there are limited data on socioeconomic and racial disparities in screening, treatment, and outcomes in this distinct group. METHODS: Adults with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed at age <50 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The exposure of interest was neighborhood socioeconomic status based on the Yost Index, a census-tract level composite score of neighborhood economic health. Univariate analysis was performed with χ2 analyses. Logistic regression models were created to evaluate the association of neighborhood socioeconomic status (Yost Index quintile) with metastasis at presentation and surgical intervention. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were created. RESULTS: In total, 45,660 early-onset colorectal cancer patients were identified; 16.8% (7,679) were in the lowest quintile of neighborhood socioeconomic status. Patients with the lowest neighborhood socioeconomic status were 1.13 times (95% confidence interval 1.06-1.21) more likely to present with metastases and had lower survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.53) compared to those with the highest neighborhood socioeconomic status. Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to present with metastatic disease (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.19), less likely to undergo surgery for localized or regional disease (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.53), and had lower survival (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.27) than non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic and racial disparities in early-onset colorectal cancer span diagnosis, treatment, and survival. As the disease burden of early-age onset colorectal cancer increases, interventions to boost early diagnosis and access to surgery are necessary to improve survival among minorities and patients with low neighborhood socioeconomic status.

Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Exploring the economic toxicity experiences and coping styles of patients with colorectal cancer fistula in Jiangsu province, China: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, economic toxicity has significantly affected the physical and mental health as well as the quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer. However, this issue has not garnered adequate attention from healthcare professionals. This study aims to investigate the experiences of economic toxicity and coping strategies among patients with colorectal cancer fistula. The findings are intended to inform the development of suitable and effective intervention programmes to address economic toxicity within this patient population. DESIGN: A descriptive phenomenological approach was employed in this qualitative research, using a semistructured method for data collection and analysis of interview data. Traditional content analysis methods were applied, encompassing coding, categorisation and theme distillation. Data analysis continued until thematic saturation was achieved, with no new themes emerging. SETTING: Nanjing Medical University Lianyungang Clinical Medical College. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 patients with colorectal cancer fistula were selected as interview subjects through purposive sampling. The selection took place from May 2022 to May 2023, involving patients during their stay at a tertiary hospital in Lianyungang city, Jiangsu province, China. RESULTS: In total, three pieces and eight subthemes were distilled: subjective feelings (worries about treatment costs, concerns about uncertainty about the future, worries about daily life), coping styles (coping alone, unwillingness to help, prepurchased insurance, dealing with illness, giving up treatment, inability to afford costs) and needs and aspirations (need for health policies, need for social support). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with colorectal cancer fistulae experience economic toxicity, leading to significant impairment in both physical and mental health. Despite employing various coping strategies, healthcare professionals must prioritise addressing the economic toxicity issue in patients. Implementing rational and effective interventions can greatly assist patients in effectively managing economic toxicity.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FOLFIRI-Based First-Line Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Clinical Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS wild type is treated using a range of drug regimens, including fluorouracil, irinotecan, and Leucovorin(FOLFIRI)plus bevacizumab(Bmab), cetuximab(Cmab), or panitumumab(Pmab). The present study aimed to identify the optimal regimen using a decision analysis method, in combination with clinical and economic evidence. METHOD: A simple Markov model with a monthly cycle time was constructed. Probabilistic variables for input into the model were derived from randomized controlled trials. Direct costs for the drugs, laboratory analyses, and medical staff were calculated and used in the model. RESULTS: The expected survival times and costs of FOLFIRI alone and combination therapies were 20.9 months and 2,299,198 yen for FOLFIRI, 29.9 months and 8,929,888 yen for Bmab, 27.8 months and 11,811,849 yen for Cmab, and 22.6 months and 8,795,622 yen for Pmab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to FOLFIRI were 736,743 yen/month for Bmab, 1,378,645 yen/month for Cmab, and 3,821,426 yen/month for Pmab. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that these regimens were not sufficiently cost-effective, although they have excellent therapeutic efficacy. From the economic point of view, these combination regimens were inferior to FOLFIRI alone.

Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis From Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increasing access to colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis, considering resource limitations in Thailand. METHODS: We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of increasing access to fecal immunochemical test screening (strategy I), symptom evaluation (strategy II), and their combination through healthcare and societal perspectives using Colo-Sim, a simulation model of CRC care. We extended our analysis by adding a risk-stratification score (RS) to the strategies. We analyzed all strategies under the currently limited annual colonoscopy capacity and sufficient capacity. We estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs over 2023 to 2047 and performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Annual costs for CRC care will increase over 25 years in Thailand, resulting in a cumulative cost of 323B Thai baht (THB). Each strategy results in higher QALYs gained and additional costs. With the current colonoscopy capacity and willingness-to-pay threshold of 160 000 THB, strategy I with and without RS is not cost-effective. Strategy II + RS is the most cost-effective, resulting in 0.68 million QALYs gained with additional costs of 66B THB. Under sufficient colonoscopy capacity, all strategies are deemed cost-effective, with the combined approach (strategy I + II + RS) being the most favorable, achieving the highest QALYs (1.55 million) at an additional cost of 131 billion THB. This strategy also maintains the highest probability of being cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay threshold above 96 000 THB. CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, fecal immunochemical test screening, symptom evaluation, and RS use can achieve the highest QALYs; however, boosting colonoscopy capacity is essential for cost-effectiveness.

Quantified trends in provider reimbursement and utilization volume in colorectal cancer screenings: analysis of Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019.

AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States remain persistently below guideline targets, partly due to suboptimal patient utilization and provider reimbursement. To guide long-term national utilization estimates and set reasonable screening adherence targets, this study aimed to quantify trends in utilization of and reimbursement for CRC screenings using Medicare claims. METHOD: Inflation-adjusted reimbursements and utilization volume associated with each CRC screening code were abstracted from Medicare claims between 2000 and 2019. Screenings, screenings/100 000 enrolees and reimbursement/screening were analysed with linear regression and compared with the equality of slopes tests. Average reimbursement per screening was compared using analysis of variance with Dunnett's T3 multiple comparisons test. RESULTS: The growth rate of multitarget stool DNA tests (mt-sDNA)/100 000 was the highest at 170.4 screenings/year (R2 = 0.99, p ≤ 0.001), while that of faecal occult blood tests/100 000 was the lowest at -446.4 screenings/year (R2 = 0.90, p ≤ 0.001) (p ≤ 0.001). Provider reimbursements averaged $546.95 (95% CI $520.12-$573.78) per mt-sDNA screening, significantly higher than reimbursements for all invasive screenings. Only FOBTs significantly increased in reimbursement per screening at $0.62/year (R2 = 0.91, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: We derived forecastable trend numbers for utilization and provider reimbursement. Faecal immunochemical tests/100 000 and mt-sDNA screenings/100 000 increased most rapidly during the entire study period. The number of nearly all invasive screenings/100 000 decreased rapidly; the number of colonoscopies/100 000 increased slightly, probably due to superior diagnostic strength. These trends indicate the that replacement of other invasive modalities with accessible noninvasive screenings will account for much of future screening behaviour and thus reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, especially given providers' reimbursement incentive to screen average-risk patients with stool-based tests.

Is Risk-Stratifying Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using a Deep Learning-Based Prognostic Biomarker Cost-Effective?

OBJECTIVES: Accurate risk stratification of patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) prior to treatment selection enables limited health resources to be efficiently allocated to patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a recently developed deep learning-based prognostic method, Histotyping, from the perspective of the Norwegian healthcare system. METHODS: Two partitioned survival models were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Histotyping for two treatment cohorts: patients with CRC stage II and III. For each of the two cohorts, Histotyping was used for risk stratification to assign adjuvant chemotherapy and was compared with the standard of care (SOC) (adjuvant chemotherapy to all patients). Health outcomes measured in the model were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of the parameters with the greatest uncertainty. RESULTS: Risk-stratifying patients with CRC stage II and III using Histotyping was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to SOC. In patients with CRC stage II, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 270,934 Norwegian kroners (NOK) (year of valuation is 2021), and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.99. In stage III, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 195,419 NOK, and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.71. CONCLUSIONS:  Risk-stratifying patients with CRC using Histotyping prior to the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in Norway.

Cost-utility analysis of expanding the colorectal cancer screening policy in Flanders.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2013, Flanders has introduced a screening programme for colorectal cancer for all citizens aged between 50 and 74 years. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of an expansion of the colorectal cancer screening policy in Flanders (Belgium) and to place these findings in the international context. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis using high-detail data about screening participation, screening results, and epidemiological data, a Markov cohort model has been constructed to study long-term costs and effects. A cost-utility analysis was performed as a three-way comparison between current, expanded (from age 45 years), and no screening scenarios, from a societal and healthcare perspective. Robustness was assessed by both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Analyses show that both current and expanded screening result in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains and are mostly cost-saving. Overall, 97.5% of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) remained well below € 2000 per QALY for all comparisons. Parameters related to the colonoscopy that follows a positive test result such as compliance and cost are especially impactful on the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Screening participation and screening costs have remained comparatively stable, making colorectal cancer screening a cost-effective (dominant) policy. Expanding the screen age to 45 years is also cost-effective (dominant) compared with current screening, albeit with a slimmer margin.

Inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer negatively affects surgery outcomes and health care costs.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease may affect the pathogenesis and clinicopathologic course of colorectal cancer. We sought to characterize the impact of inflammatory bowel disease on outcomes after colectomy and/or proctectomy for a malignant indication. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer as well as a pre-existing comorbid diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis between 2018 and 2021 were identified from Medicare claims data. The postoperative textbook outcome was defined as the absence of complications, as well as no extended hospital stay, 90-day readmission, or mortality. Postdischarge disposition and expenditures were also examined. RESULTS: Among 191,684 patients with colorectal cancer, 4,770 (2.5%) had a pre-existing diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer were less likely to undergo surgical resection (no inflammatory bowel disease: 47.6% vs inflammatory bowel disease: 42.1%; P < .001). Among patients who did undergo colorectal surgery, individuals with inflammatory bowel disease were less likely to achieve a textbook outcome (odds ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.58-0.70]). In particular, patients with inflammatory bowel disease had higher odds of postoperative complications (odds ratio 1.24 [1.12-1.38]), extended hospital stay (odds ratio 1.41 [1.27-1.58]), and readmission within 90 days (odds ratio 1.56 [1.42-1.72]) (all P < .05). Patients with inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer were less likely to be discharged to their home under independent care (odds ratio 0.77 [0.68-0.87]) and had 12.2% higher expenditures, which correlated with whether the patient had a postoperative textbook outcome. CONCLUSION: One in 40 patients with colorectal cancer had concomitant inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory bowel disease was associated with a lower probability of achieving ideal postoperative outcomes, higher postdischarge expenditure, as well as worse long-term survival after colorectal cancer resection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib in Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) presenting a particularly challenging prognosis. The FRESCO-2 trial highlighted the potential of fruquintinib in heavily pretreated mCRC patients. AIM: Given the recent changes in drug pricing in China and the evolving mCRC treatments, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib in the context of current Chinese healthcare standards. METHOD: This study utilized data from the FRESCO-2 trial, incorporating a partitioned-survival model to simulate three health states: Progression-Free Survival, Progressive Disease, and death. Costs and utility values were derived from published literature and the FRESCO-2 trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case result and to understand the impact of various parameters on the ICER. RESULTS: The base-case analysis revealed a total cost of $11,089.05 for the fruquintinib group and $5,374.48 for the placebo group. The overall QALYs were higher in the fruquintinib group (0.61 QALYs) compared to the placebo group (0.43 QALYs). The ICER was calculated to be $31,747.67 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the utility of progression-free survival, the cost of fruquintinib, and the costs of best supportive care as significant determinants of ICER. CONCLUSION: Fruquintinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for refractory mCRC. However, its cost-effectiveness depends on selected willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. While the drug's ICER surpasses the WTP based on China's 2022 GDP per capita, it remains below the threshold set at three times the national GDP.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation. METHODS: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation. CONCLUSIONS: CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test may increase screening participation. However, blood tests may be less effective than current guideline-endorsed options. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers blood tests with sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%. In this study, we investigate whether a blood test that meets these criteria is cost-effective. METHODS: Three microsimulation models for CRC (MISCAN-Colon, CRC-SPIN, and SimCRC) were used to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening (from ages 45 to 75 years) compared to no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with an FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The CMS coverage criteria were used as performance characteristics of the hypothetical blood test. We varied screening ages, test performance characteristics, and screening uptake in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Without screening, the models predicted 77-88 CRC cases and 32-36 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals, costing $5.3-$5.8 million. Compared to no screening, blood-based screening was cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600-$43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG). However, compared to FIT, triennial stool DNA testing combined with FIT, and colonoscopy, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT remained more effective (+5-24 QALYG) and less costly (-$3.2 to -$3.5 million) than blood-based screening even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT. CONCLUSION: Even with higher screening uptake, triennial blood-based screening, with the CMS-specified minimum performance sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 90%, was not projected to be cost-effective compared with established strategies for colorectal cancer screening.