Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening. METHODS: Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both. RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48. CONCLUSIONS: Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk. IMPACT: Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.

Revised Australian national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: family history.

INTRODUCTION: Screening is an effective means for colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Family history is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. We describe the rationale, evidence and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by family history for people without a genetic syndrome, as reported in the 2017 revised Australian guidelines. Main recommendations: Based on 10-year risks of colorectal cancer, people at near average risk due to no or weak family history (category 1) are recommended screening by immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years from age 50 to 74 years. Individuals with moderate risk due to their family history (category 2) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 40 to 49 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 to 74 years. People with a high risk due to their family history (category 3) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 35 to 44 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 45 to 74 years. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: By 2019, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will offer all Australians free biennial iFOBT screening from age 50 to 74 years, consistent with the recommendations in these guidelines for category 1. Compared with the 2005 guidelines, there are some minor changes in the family history inclusion criteria for categories 1 and 2; the genetic syndromes have been removed from category 3 and, as a consequence, colonoscopy screening is now every 5 years; and for categories 2 and 3, screening begins with iFOBT for people aged 40 and 35 years, respectively, before transitioning to colonoscopy after 10 years.

Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Potential Age Extensions to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is rolling out 2-yearly immunochemical fecal occult blood test screening in people aged 50 to 74 years. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending the NBCSP to younger and/or older ages. METHODS: A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate the fully rolled-out NBCSP and alternative strategies assuming screening starts at 40 or 45 years and/or ceases at 79 or 84 years given three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence (100%), (ii) high adherence (60%), and (ii) low adherence (40%, as currently achieved). RESULTS: The current NBCSP will reduce colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) by 23% to 51% (36% to 74%) compared with no screening (range reflects participation); extending screening to younger or older ages would result in additional reductions of 2 to 6 (2 to 9) or 1 to 3 (3 to 7) percentage points, respectively. With an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS), only screening from 50 to 74 years [incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER): A$2,984-5,981/LYS) or from 45 to 74 years (ICER: A$17,053-29,512/LYS) remained cost-effective in all participation scenarios. The number-needed-to-colonoscope to prevent a death over the lifetime of a cohort in the current NBCSP is 35 to 49. Starting screening at 45 years would increase colonoscopy demand for program-related colonoscopies by 3% to 14% and be associated with 55 to 170 additional colonoscopies per additional death prevented. CONCLUSIONS: Starting screening at 45 years could be cost-effective, but it would increase colonoscopy demand and would be associated with a less favorable incremental benefits-to-harms trade-off than screening from 50 to 74 years. IMPACT: The study underpins recently updated Australian colorectal cancer management guidelines that recommend that the NBCSP continues to offer bowel screening from 50 to 74 years.

Costs and outcomes of Lynch syndrome screening in the Australian colorectal cancer population.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at increased risk of LS-related cancers including colorectal cancer (CRC). CRC tumor screening for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is recommended in Australia to identify LS, although its cost-effectiveness has not been assessed. We aim to determine the cost-effectiveness of screening individuals with CRC for LS at different age-at-diagnosis thresholds. METHODS: We developed a decision analysis model to estimate yield and costs of LS screening. Age-specific probabilities of LS diagnosis were based on Australian data. Two CRC tumor screening pathways were assessed (MMR immunohistochemistry followed by MLH1 methylation (MLH1-Pathway) or BRAF V600E testing (BRAF-Pathway) if MLH1 expression was lost) for four age-at-diagnosis thresholds-screening < 50, screening < 60, screening < 70, and universal screening. RESULTS: Per 1000 CRC cases, screening < 50 identified 5.2 LS cases and cost $A7041 per case detected in the MLH1-Pathway. Screening < 60 increased detection by 1.5 cases for an incremental cost of $A25 177 per additional case detected. Screening < 70 detected 1.6 additional cases at an incremental cost of $A40 278 per additional case detected. Compared with screening < 70, universal screening detected no additional LS cases but cost $A158 724 extra. The BRAF-Pathway identified the same number of LS cases for higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: The MLH1-Pathway is more cost-effective than BRAF-Pathway for all age-at-diagnosis thresholds. MMR immunohistochemistry tumor screening in individuals diagnosed with CRC aged < 70 years resulted in higher LS case detection at a reasonable cost. Further research into the yield of LS screening in CRC patients ≥ 70 years is needed to determine if universal screening is justified.

Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia.

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.

Reducing the cost of proton pump inhibitors by adopting best practice.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the appropriateness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use by assessing the level of compliance of PPI prescribing practices with published guidelines and to assess the potential cost avoidance through inappropriate prescribing. METHOD: A six-week observational study of PPI prescriptions was undertaken between April and June 2005, involving hospital inpatients who were taking a PPI prior to admission. The patients were evaluated using a standardised questionnaire to obtain information regarding their PPI use and efficacy. RESULTS: Among the 679 patients admitted during the study period, 133 were receiving a PPI, and of these 97 (50 men and 47 women) were enrolled into the study. The commonest indication for PPI use was gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD, n = 71; 73.2%). In this cohort, more than one-quarter of patients (26.6%) were using greater than the standard PPI dose. Over half of the patients had at least one risk factor known to exacerbate GORD (51.5% were overweight, 46.4% alcohol consumers and 14% current smokers), and 71.1% were receiving medications known to cause or worsen reflux symptoms. Of those patients who reported alarm symptoms, 84% had undergone endoscopy. The overall compliance with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescribing guidelines was 78.4%, with the major reason for non-compliance being use for non-PBS indications. Estimated cost savings through adoption of recommended prescribing practices and the implementation of step-down therapy for GORD patients were up to AUD 90,866 and AUD 118,456 per 100 patient-treatment-years, respectively. CONCLUSION: PPIs continue to be prescribed outside the treatment guidelines. As a result, opportunities exist to reduce the cost of PPI use through management of contributing factors, adherence to recommended dosage schedules and use of step-down therapy in asymptomatic patients where appropriate.

Timely cancer diagnosis and management as a chronic condition: opportunities for primary care.

One in three men and one in four women in Australia will be diagnosed with cancer in the first 75 years of life. The majority will survive the cancer and ultimately die from unrelated causes. Many cancer patients and their families will experience some physical, social, economic and psychological sequelae, regardless of the prognosis. A recurring theme is that patients are disadvantaged by the lack of coordination of care and their needs are not being adequately met. We argue that greater integration of care through a multidisciplinary team of professionals, peer support groups and primary health practitioners functioning within a care hub could offer better practical and psychosocial supportive care for patients and their families.

Repeat colonoscopy has a low yield even in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: In many regions, the demand for colonoscopy exceeds its availability. Patients undergoing repeat examinations comprise a significant proportion of those on waiting lists. OBJECTIVE: To assess the yield of repeat colonoscopy in varied clinical settings. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Endoscopic database of an Australian tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: Adults who had >/=2 colonoscopies between 1992 and 2004. Patients were excluded if the repeat procedure was for completion or for high-risk surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Yield for neoplasia by indication, interval to repeat examination, and appropriateness for surveillance (determined by National Australian guidelines). RESULTS: A total of 4974 colonoscopies in 2075 patients were studied. The mean age was 63.1 years (range, 19.2-92.4 years). The mean number of examinations was 2.4 (range, 2-8), with a mean interval between examinations of 2.9 years. Colorectal cancer (CRC) was significantly more prevalent at initial colonoscopy compared with subsequent colonoscopies (7.9% vs 0.6%; prevalence ratio 14.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5-23.7, P < .001), as were advanced adenomas (15.3% vs 4.8%; prevalence ratio 3.2, 95% CI 2.6-3.9, P < .001). No CRCs were detected in symptomatic patients undergoing polyp surveillance examinations performed before the recommended interval. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Yield of repeat colonoscopy is significantly lower than for initial colonoscopy, irrespective of indication. In symptomatic patients within a polyp surveillance program, the yield is negligible when a colonoscopy is performed before the recommended surveillance interval. The need for a repeat colonoscopy should be carefully considered, and patients who have never had a colonoscopy must take priority on waiting lists over those awaiting repeat examinations.