Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Do Men and Women Need to Be Screened Differently with Fecal Immunochemical Testing? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Several studies suggest that test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) differ by gender, triggering a debate on whether men and women should be screened differently. We used the microsimulation model MISCAN-Colon to evaluate whether screening stratified by gender is cost-effective.Methods: We estimated gender-specific FIT characteristics based on first-round positivity and detection rates observed in a FIT screening pilot (CORERO-1). Subsequently, we used the model to estimate harms, benefits, and costs of 480 gender-specific FIT screening strategies and compared them with uniform screening.Results: Biennial FIT screening from ages 50 to 75 was less effective in women than men [35.7 vs. 49.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively] at higher costs (€42,161 vs. -€5,471, respectively). However, the incremental QALYs gained and costs of annual screening compared with biennial screening were more similar for both genders (8.7 QALYs gained and €26,394 for women vs. 6.7 QALYs gained and €20,863 for men). Considering all evaluated screening strategies, optimal gender-based screening yielded at most 7% more QALYs gained than optimal uniform screening and even resulted in equal costs and QALYs gained from a willingness-to-pay threshold of €1,300.Conclusions: FIT screening is less effective in women, but the incremental cost-effectiveness is similar in men and women. Consequently, screening stratified by gender is not more cost-effective than uniform FIT screening.Impact: Our conclusions support the current policy of uniform FIT screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1328-36. ©2017 AACR.

Fecal occult blood testing when colonoscopy capacity is limited.

BACKGROUND: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) can be adapted to a limited colonoscopy capacity by narrowing the age range or extending the screening interval, by using a more specific test or hemoglobin cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy, and by restricting surveillance colonoscopy. Which of these options is most clinically effective and cost-effective has yet to be established. METHODS: We used the validated MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the number of colonoscopies, costs, and health effects of different screening strategies using guaiac FOBT or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at various hemoglobin cutoff levels between 50 and 200 ng hemoglobin per mL, different surveillance strategies, and various age ranges. We optimized the allocation of a limited number of colonoscopies on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: When colonoscopy capacity was unlimited, the optimal screening strategy was to administer an annual FIT with a 50 ng/mL hemoglobin cutoff level in individuals aged 45-80 years and to offer colonoscopy surveillance to all individuals with adenomas. When colonoscopy capacity was decreasing, the optimal screening adaptation was to first increase the FIT hemoglobin cutoff value to 200 ng hemoglobin per mL and narrow the age range to 50-75 years, to restrict colonoscopy surveillance, and finally to further decrease the number of screening rounds. FIT screening was always more cost-effective compared with guaiac FOBT. Doubling colonoscopy capacity increased the benefits of FIT screening up to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: FIT should be used at higher hemoglobin cutoff levels when colonoscopy capacity is limited compared with unlimited and is more effective in terms of health outcomes and cost compared with guaiac FOBT at all colonoscopy capacity levels. Increasing the colonoscopy capacity substantially increases the health benefits of FIT screening.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quantitative immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Two European randomized trials (N = 30,000) compared guaiac fecal occult blood testing with quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and showed better attendance rates and test characteristics for FIT. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective FIT cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy based on data from these trials and allowing for differences in screening ages. METHODS: We used the validated MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Colon microsimulation model to estimate costs and effects of different screening strategies for FIT cutoff levels of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL hemoglobin. For each cutoff level, screening strategies were assessed with various age ranges and screening intervals. We assumed sufficient colonoscopy capacity for all strategies. RESULTS: At all cost levels, FIT screening was most effective with the 50 ng/mL cutoff level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biennial screening between ages 55 and 75 years using FIT at 50 ng/mL, for example, was 3900 euro per life year gained. Annual screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,900 euro per life year gained, in combination with a wider age range (between ages 45 and 80 years). In the sensitivity analysis, 50 ng/mL remained the preferred cutoff level. CONCLUSIONS: FIT screening is more cost-effective at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL than at higher cutoff levels. This supports the recommendation to use FIT at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL, which is considerably lower than the values used in current practice.

Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health economics commonly present choice sets in an unlabeled form. Labeled choice sets are less abstract and may increase the validity of the results. We empirically compared the feasibility, respondents' trading behavior, and convergent validity between a labeled and an unlabeled DCE for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs in The Netherlands. METHODS: A labeled DCE version presented CRC screening test alternatives as "fecal occult blood test,""sigmoidoscopy," and "colonoscopy," whereas the unlabeled DCE version presented them as "screening test A" and "screening test B." Questionnaires were sent to participants and nonparticipants in CRC screening. RESULTS: Total response rate was 276 (39%) out of 712 and 1033 (46%) out of 2267 for unlabeled and labeled DCEs, respectively (P<0.001). The labels played a significant role in individual choices; approximately 22% of subjects had dominant preferences for screening test labels. The convergent validity was modest to low (participants in CRC screening: r=0.54; P=0.01; nonparticipants: r=0.17; P=0.45) largely because of different preferences for screening frequency. CONCLUSION: This study provides important insights in the feasibility and difference in results from labeled and unlabeled DCEs. The inclusion of labels appeared to play a significant role in individual choices but reduced the attention respondents give to the attributes. As a result, unlabeled DCEs may be more suitable to investigate trade-offs between attributes and for respondents who do not have familiarity with the alternative labels, whereas labeled DCEs may be more suitable to explain real-life choices such as uptake of cancer screening.