Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened.

Importance: Despite recommendations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 60%. Liquid biopsy tests are in development for cancer early detection, but it is unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liquid biopsy, liquid biopsy following nonadherence to colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test. Adherence to first-line screening with colonoscopy, stool DNA, or fecal immunochemical test was assumed to be 60.6%, and adherence for liquid biopsy was assumed to be 100%. For colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test, patients who did not adhere to testing were not offered other screening. In colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid, liquid biopsy was second-line screening for those who deferred colonoscopy. Scenario analyses were performed to include the possibility of polyp detection for liquid biopsy. Exposures: No screening, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA, liquid biopsy, and colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Model outcomes included life expectancy, total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained. Results: This study used a simulated cohort of patients aged 45 years with average risk of colorectal cancer. In the base case, colonoscopy was the preferred, or cost-effective, strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28 071 per life-year gained. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had the greatest gain in life-years gained but had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $377 538. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had a greater gain in life-years if liquid biopsy could detect polyps but remained too costly. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, and the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a first- or second-line screening strategy was not cost-effective at its current cost and screening performance. Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if their cost is substantially lowered.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). AIM: The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an "R0" resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G-nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower. CONCLUSION: Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Specific Surveillance and Preventive Strategies for Gynecologic Cancers Among Women With Lynch Syndrome.

Importance: With the expansion of multigene testing for cancer susceptibility, Lynch syndrome (LS) has become more readily identified among women. The condition is caused by germline pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes (ie, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and is associated with high but variable risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers based on genotype. However, current guidelines on preventive strategies are not specific to genotypes. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of genotype-specific surveillance and preventive strategies for LS-associated gynecologic cancers, including a novel, risk-reducing surgical approach associated with decreased early surgically induced menopause. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation developed a cohort-level Markov simulation model of the natural history of LS-associated gynecologic cancer for each gene, among women from ages 25 to 75 years or until death from a health care perspective. Age was varied at hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (hyst-BSO) and at surveillance initiation, and a 2-stage surgical approach (ie, hysterectomy and salpingectomy at age 40 years and delayed oophorectomy at age 50 years [hyst-BS]) was included. Extensive 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Interventions: Hyst-BSO at ages 35 years, 40 years, or 50 years with or without annual surveillance beginning at age 30 years or 35 years or hyst-BS at age 40 years with oophorectomy delayed until age 50 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between management strategies within an efficiency frontier. Results: For women with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, the optimal strategy was the 2-stage approach, with respective ICERs of $33 269 and $20 008 compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years. Despite being cost-effective, the 2-stage approach was associated with increased cancer incidence and mortality compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MLH1 variants (incidence: 7.76% vs 3.84%; mortality: 5.74% vs 2.55%) and those with MSH6 variants (incidence: 7.24% vs 4.52%; mortality: 5.22% vs 2.97%). Hyst-BSO at age 40 years was optimal for individuals with MSH2 variants, with an ICER of $5180 compared with hyst-BSO at age 35 years, and was associated with 4.42% cancer incidence and 2.97% cancer mortality. For individuals with PMS2 variants, hyst-BSO at age 50 years was optimal and all other strategies were dominated; hyst-BSO at age 50 years was associated with an estimated cancer incidence of 0.68% and cancer mortality of 0.29%. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that gene-specific preventive strategies for gynecologic cancers in LS may be warranted and support hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MSH2 variants. For individuals with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, these findings suggest that a novel 2-stage surgical approach with delayed oophorectomy may be an alternative to hyst-BSO at age 40 years to avoid early menopause, and for individuals with PMS2 variants, the findings suggest that hyst-BSO may be delayed until age 50 years.

Threshold Analysis of the Cost-effectiveness of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Patients at High Risk for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Data from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium studies have demonstrated that screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can be effective and that surveillance improves survival in high-risk individuals. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and cross-sectional imaging are both used, although there is some suggestion that EUS is superior. Demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of screening is important to implement screening in high-risk groups. METHODS: Results from centers with EUS-predominant screening were pooled to evaluate efficacy of index EUS in screening. A decision analysis model simulated the outcome of high-risk patients who undergo screening and evaluated the parameters that would make screening cost-effective at a US $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year willingness to pay. RESULTS: One-time index EUS has a sensitivity of 71.25% and specificity of 99.82% to detection to detect high-risk lesions. Screening with index EUS was cost-effective, particularly at lifetime pancreatic cancer probabilities of greater than 10.8%, or at lower probabilities if life expectancy after resection of a lesion that was at least 16 years, and if missed, lesion rates on index EUS are 5% or less. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer screening can be cost-effective through index EUS, particularly for those individuals at high-lifetime risk of cancer.

Gene-Specific Variation in Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Strategies for Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lynch syndrome is associated with pathogenic variants in 4 mismatch repair (MMR) genes that increase lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Guidelines recommend intensive colorectal cancer surveillance with colonoscopy every 1-2 years starting at age 25 years for all carriers of Lynch syndrome-associated variants, regardless of gene product. We constructed a simulation model to analyze the effects of different ages of colonoscopy initiation and surveillance intervals for each MMR gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost. METHODS: Using published literature, we developed a Markov simulation model of Lynch syndrome progression for patients with each MMR variant. The model simulated clinical trials of Lynch syndrome carriers, varying age of colonoscopy initiation (5-year increments from 25-40 years), and surveillance intervals (1-5 years). We assessed the optimal strategy for each gene, defined as the strategy with the highest quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Optimal surveillance for patients with pathogenic variants in the MLH1 and MSH2 genes was colonoscopy starting at age 25 years, with 1- to 2-year surveillance intervals. Initiating colonoscopy at age 35 and 40 years, with 3-year intervals, was cost-effective for patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 or PMS2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a simulation model to select optimal surveillance starting ages and intervals for patients with Lynch syndrome based on MMR variant. The model supports recommendations for intensive surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MLH1 or MSH2. However, for patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants of MSH6 or PMS2, later initiation of surveillance at 35 and 40 years, respectively, and at 3-year intervals, can be considered.

Development and Validation of the PREMM5 Model for Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Lynch Syndrome.

Purpose Current Lynch syndrome (LS) prediction models quantify the risk to an individual of carrying a pathogenic germline mutation in three mismatch repair (MMR) genes: MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. We developed a new prediction model, PREMM5, that incorporates the genes PMS2 and EPCAM to provide comprehensive LS risk assessment. Patients and Methods PREMM5 was developed to predict the likelihood of a mutation in any of the LS genes by using polytomous logistic regression analysis of clinical and germline data from 18,734 individuals who were tested for all five genes. Predictors of mutation status included sex, age at genetic testing, and proband and family cancer histories. Discrimination was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and clinical impact was determined by decision curve analysis; comparisons were made to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model. External validation of PREMM5 was performed in a clinic-based cohort of 1,058 patients with colorectal cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were detected in 1,000 (5%) of 18,734 patients in the development cohort; mutations included MLH1 (n = 306), MSH2 (n = 354), MSH6 (n = 177), PMS2 (n = 141), and EPCAM (n = 22). PREMM5 distinguished carriers from noncarriers with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), and performance was similar in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92). Prediction was more difficult for PMS2 mutations (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.68) than for other genes. Performance characteristics of PREMM5 exceeded those of PREMM1,2,6. Decision curve analysis supported germline LS testing for PREMM5 scores ≥ 2.5%. Conclusion PREMM5 provides comprehensive risk estimation of all five LS genes and supports LS genetic testing for individuals with scores ≥ 2.5%. At this threshold, PREMM5 provides performance that is superior to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model in the identification of carriers of LS, including those with weaker phenotypes and individuals unaffected by cancer.

Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey.

PURPOSE: Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in decreased neoplasia detection, shortened surveillance intervals, and increased costs. We assessed bowel preparation recommendations and the relationship to self-reported proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice; and evaluated the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on colonoscopy surveillance practices. A random sample of a national organization of gastroenterologists in the U.S. was surveyed. METHODS: Demographic and practice characteristics, bowel preparation regimens, and proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice were ascertained. Recommended follow-up colonoscopy intervals were evaluated for optimal and suboptimal bowel preparation and select clinical scenarios. RESULTS: We identified 6,777 physicians, of which 1,354 were randomly selected; 999 were eligible, and 288 completed the survey. Higher proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations/week (≥10 %) was associated with hospital/university practice, teaching hospital affiliation, >25 % Medicaid insured patients, recommendation of PEG alone and sulfate-free. Those reporting >25 % Medicare and privately insured patients, split dose recommendation, and use of MoviPrep® were associated with a <10 % suboptimal bowel preparations/week. Shorter surveillance intervals for three clinical scenarios were reported for suboptimal preparations and were shortest among participants in the Northeast who more often recommended early follow-up for normal findings and small adenomas. Those who recommended 4-l PEG alone more often advised <1 year surveillance interval for a large adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates significantly shortened surveillance interval recommendations for suboptimal bowel preparation and that these interval recommendations vary regionally in the United States. Findings suggest an interrelationship between dietary restriction, purgative type, and practice and patient characteristics that warrant additional research.

Gastroenterologists' perceived barriers to optimal pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation: results of a national survey.

Poor quality bowel preparation has been reported in almost one third of all colonoscopies. To better understand factors associated with poor bowel preparation, we explored perceived patient barriers to optimal pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation from the perspective of the gastroenterologist. A random sample of physician members of the American College of Gastroenterology was surveyed via the internet and postal mailing. Demographic and practice characteristics and practice-related and perceived patient barriers to optimal bowel preparation were assessed among 288 respondents. Lack of time, no patient education reimbursement, and volume of information were not associated with physician level of suboptimal bowel preparation. Those reporting ≥ 10 % suboptimal bowel preparations were more likely to believe patients lack understanding of the importance of following instructions, have problems with diet, and experience trouble tolerating the purgative. Bowel preparation instruction communication and unmet patient educational needs contribute to suboptimal bowel preparation. Educational interventions should address both practice and patient-related factors.

Knowledge of quality performance measures associated with endoscopy among gastroenterology trainees and the impact of a web-based intervention.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of quality measures in endoscopy among trainees is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge of endoscopy-related quality indicators among U.S. trainees and determine whether it improves with a Web-based intervention. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Multicenter. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved trainees identified from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy membership database. INTERVENTION: Participants were invited to complete an 18-question online test. Respondents were randomized to receive a Web-based tutorial (intervention) or not. The test was readministered 6 weeks after randomization to determine the intervention's impact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Baseline knowledge of endoscopy-related quality indicators and impact of the tutorial. RESULTS: A total of 347 of 1220 trainees (28%) completed the test; the mean percentage of correct responses was 55%. For screening colonoscopy, 44% knew the adenoma detection rate benchmark, 42% identified the cecal intubation rate goal, and 74% knew the recommended minimum withdrawal time. A total of 208 of 347 trainees (59%) completed the second test; baseline scores were similar for the tutorial (n = 106) and no tutorial (n = 102) groups (56.4% vs 56.9%, respectively). Scores improved after intervention for the tutorial group (65%, P = .003) but remained unchanged in the no tutorial group. On multivariate analysis, each additional year in training (odds ratio [OR] 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.4), training at an academic institution (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3), and receiving the tutorial (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-5.9) were associated with scores in the upper tertile. LIMITATIONS: Low response rate. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of endoscopy-related quality performance measures is low among trainees but can improve with a Web-based tutorial. Gastroenterology training programs may need to incorporate a formal didactic curriculum to supplement practice-based learning of quality standards in endoscopy.

Development and validation of a colon cancer risk assessment tool for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic criteria for hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) are complex. "Open-access" colonoscopy makes it challenging to identify who needs genetic evaluation, intensive surveillance, and screening for extracolonic tumors. Our aim was to develop a simple, preprocedural risk assessment tool to identify who may be at highest risk for CRC. METHODS: A total of 631 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy at two academic practices completed a questionnaire assessing personal and family histories of CRC, polyps, and Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated malignancies. Subjects were considered to be high-risk if one of the nine prespecified characteristics of hereditary CRC syndromes was met. Through recursive partitioning analysis, an algorithm of fewest questions needed to capture the most high-risk individuals was developed. The results were validated in 5,335 individuals undergoing colonoscopy at five private endoscopy centers and tested in 285 carriers of mismatch repair mutations associated with LS. RESULTS: About 17.7% and 20.0% of individuals were classified as high-risk in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Recursive partitioning revealed three questions that were most informative for identifying high-risk patients: (i) "Do you have a first-degree relative with CRC or LS-related cancer diagnosed before age 50?" (ii) "Have you had CRC or polyps diagnosed before age 50?" (iii) "Do you have > or =3 relatives with CRC?" When asked successively, these questions identified 77% of high-risk individuals in both cohorts and 271 of 285 (95%) of mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in five individuals undergoing colonoscopy would benefit from further risk assessment. We developed a simple, three-question CRC Risk Assessment Tool to identify the majority of patients who require additional assessment and possible genetic evaluation.