Preference of endoscopic ablation over medical prevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma by patients with Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic intervention or pharmacologic inhibition of cyclooxygenase might be used to prevent progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We investigated whether patients with BE prefer endoscopic therapy or chemoprevention of EAC. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with nondysplastic BE were given a survey that described 2 scenarios. The survey explained that treatment A (ablation), endoscopy, reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50%, with 5% risk for esophageal stricture, whereas treatment B (aspirin) reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50% and the risk of heart attack by 30%, yet increased the risk for ulcer by 75%. Subjects indicated their willingness to undergo either treatment A and/or treatment B if endoscopic surveillance were required every 3-5 years, every 10 years, or were not required. Visual aids were included to represent risk and benefit percentages. RESULTS: When surveillance was required every 3-5 years, more subjects were willing to undergo treatment A than treatment B (78%, 63 of 81 vs 53%, 43 of 81; P < .01). There were no differences in age, sex, education level, or history of cancer, heart disease, or ulcer between patients willing to undergo treatment A and those willing to undergo treatment B. Altering the frequency of surveillance did not affect patients' willingness to undergo either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a simulated scenario, patients with BE preferred endoscopic intervention over chemoprevention for EAC. Further investigation of the shared decision-making process regarding preventive strategies for patients with BE may be warranted.

Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model.

PURPOSE: To identify when, from the standpoint of relative risk, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based screening may be effective in patients with a known or suspected genetic predisposition to pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a Markov model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The model was calibrated to National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data and informed by the literature. A hypothetical screening strategy was evaluated in which all population individuals underwent one-time MR imaging screening at age 50 years. Screening outcomes for individuals with an average risk for PDAC ("base case") were compared with those for individuals at an increased risk to assess for differential benefits in populations with a known or suspected genetic predisposition. Effects of varying key inputs, including MR imaging performance, surgical mortality, and screening age, were evaluated with a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS In the base case, screening resulted in a small number of cancer deaths averted (39 of 100 000 men, 38 of 100 000 women) and a net decrease in life expectancy (-3 days for men, -4 days for women), which was driven by unnecessary pancreatic surgeries associated with false-positive results. Life expectancy gains were achieved if an individual's risk for PDAC exceeded 2.4 (men) or 2.7 (women) times that of the general population. When relative risk increased further, for example to 30 times that of the general population, averted cancer deaths and life expectancy gains increased substantially (1219 of 100 000 men, life expectancy gain: 65 days; 1204 of 100 000 women, life expectancy gain: 71 days). In addition, results were sensitive to MR imaging specificity and the surgical mortality rate. CONCLUSION: Although PDAC screening with MR imaging for the entire population is not effective, individuals with even modestly increased risk may benefit.

High-resolution microendoscopy for esophageal cancer screening in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: To study the cost-effectiveness of high-resolution microendoscopy (HRME) in an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) screening program in China. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model of ESCC was developed. Separate model analyses were conducted for cohorts consisting of an average-risk population or a high-risk population in China. Hypothetical 50-year-old individuals were followed until age 80 or death. We compared three different strategies for both cohorts: (1) no screening; (2) standard endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining; and (3) endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining and an HRME. Model parameters were estimated from the literature as well as from GLOBOCAN, the Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide cancer database. Health states in the model included non-neoplasia, mild dysplasia, moderate dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal carcinoma, operable cancer, inoperable cancer, and death. Separate ESCC incidence transition rates were generated for the average-risk and high-risk populations. Costs in Chinese currency were converted to international dollars (I$) and were adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: The main outcome measurements for this study were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the average-risk population, the HRME screening strategy produced 0.043 more QALYs than the no screening strategy at an additional cost of I$646, resulting in an ICER of I$11808 per QALY gained. Standard endoscopic screening was weakly dominated. Among the high-risk population, when the HRME screening strategy was compared with the standard screening strategy, the ICER was I$8173 per QALY. For both the high-risk and average-risk screening populations, the HRME screening strategy appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy, producing ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold, I$23500 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for the average-risk population, higher specificity of Lugol's iodine (> 40%) and lower specificity of HRME (< 70%) could make Lugol's iodine screening cost-effective. For the high-risk population, the results of the model were not substantially affected by varying the follow-up rate after Lugol's iodine screening, Lugol's iodine test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), or HRME specificity. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of HRME into an ESCC screening program could be cost-effective in China. Larger studies of HRME performance are needed to confirm these findings.

Statins and aspirin for chemoprevention in Barrett's esophagus: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Data suggest that aspirin, statins, or a combination of the two drugs may lower the progression of Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, aspirin is associated with potential complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, and statins are associated with myopathy. We developed a simulation disease model to study the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of aspirin and statin chemoprevention against esophageal adenocarcinoma. A decision analytic Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for Barrett's esophagus management; all regimens included standard endoscopic surveillance regimens: (i) endoscopic surveillance alone, (ii) aspirin therapy, (iii) statin therapy, and (iv) combination therapy of aspirin and statin. Endpoints evaluated were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of model input uncertainty on results. Assuming an annual progression rate of 0.33% per year from Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma, aspirin therapy was more effective and cost less than (dominated) endoscopic surveillance alone. When combination therapy was compared with aspirin therapy, the ICER was $158,000/QALY, which was above our willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Statin therapy was dominated by combination therapy. When higher annual cancer progression rates were assumed in the model (0.5% per year), combination therapy was cost-effective compared with aspirin therapy, producing an ICER of $96,000/QALY. In conclusion, aspirin chemoprevention was both more effective and cost less than endoscopic surveillance alone. Combination therapy using both aspirin and statin is expensive but could be cost-effective in patients at higher risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.