The predicted impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in people with incident colorectal cancer (CRC) in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We investigated the impact of LS testing strategies in a micro-simulation model (Policy1-Lynch), explicitly modelling the cost of testing all patients diagnosed with incident CRC during 2017, with detailed modelling of outcomes for patients identified as LS carriers (probands) and their at-risk relatives throughout their lifetimes. For people with confirmed LS, we modelled ongoing colonoscopic surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness of six universal tumour testing strategies (testing for DNA mismatch repair deficiencies) and of universal germline gene panel testing of patients with incident CRC; impact on cost-effectiveness of restricting testing by age at CRC diagnosis (all ages, under 50/60/70 years) and of colonoscopic surveillance interval (one, two years). RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio of universal tumour testing strategies (annual colonoscopic surveillance, no testing age limit) compared with no testing ranged from $28 915 to $31 904/life-year saved (LYS) (indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: $30 000-$50 000/LYS). These strategies could avert 184-189 CRC deaths with an additional 30 597-31 084 colonoscopies over the lifetimes of 1000 patients with incident CRC with LS and 1420 confirmed LS carrier relatives (164-166 additional colonoscopies/death averted). The most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $28 915/LYS). Universal germline gene panel testing was not cost-effective compared with universal tumour testing strategies (ICER, $2.4 million/LYS). Immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing was cost-effective at all age limits when paired with 2-yearly colonoscopic surveillance (ICER, $11 525-$32 153/LYS), and required 4778-15 860 additional colonoscopies to avert 46-181 CRC deaths (88-103 additional colonoscopies/death averted). CONCLUSIONS: Universal tumour testing strategies for guiding germline genetic testing of people with incident CRC for LS in Australia are likely to be cost-effective compared with no testing. Universal germline gene panel testing would not currently be cost-effective.

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.

Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY). CONCLUSION: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.

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.

Detection and staging of esophageal cancers within Barrett's esophagus is improved by assessment in specialized Barrett's units.

BACKGROUND: Identification and resection of mucosal abnormalities are critical in managing dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) because these areas may harbor esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). OBJECTIVES: To compare mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in dysplastic BE in the community versus a BE unit and assess the impact of EMR on disease staging and management. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with dysplastic BE. INTERVENTIONS: Reassessment with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and Seattle protocol biopsies. EMR performed in lesions thought to harbor neoplasia. Review of referral histology and endoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in a BE unit versus the community. Impact of EMR on management. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were referred (88% male; median age, 69 years). At referral, HD-WLE/NBI use was 57%/14%, and Seattle protocol adherence was 20%. Eighteen patients had intramucosal cancer. Lesions were detected in 65 patients in the BE unit versus 29 patients at referral (P < .001). EMR was performed in 47 patients. BE unit assessment confirmed EAC in all 18 patients and identified 10 additional patients (56% increased cancer detection, P = .036); all 10 had lesions identified in the BE unit (vs 3 identified at referral). EMR in these patients found submucosal cancer (n = 4) and intramucosal cancer (n = 6), resulting in esophagectomy (n = 4) and chemoradiotherapy (n = 1). LIMITATION: Academic center. CONCLUSION: BE assessment at a BE unit resulted in increased lesion and EAC detection. EMR of early cancers was critical in optimizing patient management. These data suggest that BE unit referral be considered in patients with dysplastic BE.

Relationship between disease severity and quality of life and assessment of health care utilization and cost for ulcerative colitis in Australia: a cross-sectional, observational study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The burden of ulcerative colitis (UC) in relation to disease severity is not well documented. This study quantitatively evaluated the relationship between disease activity and quality of life (QoL), as well as health care utilization, cost, and work-related impairment associated with UC in an Australian population. METHODS: A cross-sectional, noninterventional, observational study was performed in patients with a wide range of disease severity recruited during routine specialist consultations. Evaluations included the Assessment of Quality of Life-8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) instrument. The 3-item Partial Mayo Score was used to assess disease severity. Health care resource utilization was assessed by chart review and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: In 175 patients, mean (SD) AQoL-8D and EQ-5D-5L scores were greater for patients in remission (0.80 [0.19] and 0.81 [0.18], respectively) than for patients with active disease (0.70 [0.20] and 0.72 [0.19], respectively, both Ps<0.001). IBDQ correlated with both AQoL-8D (r=0.73; P<0.0001) and EQ-5D-5L (0.69; P<0.0001). Mean 3-month UC-related health care cost per patient was AUD $2914 (SD=$3447 [mean for patients in remission=$1970; mild disease=$3736; moderate/severe disease=$4162]). Patients in remission had the least work and activity impairment. CONCLUSIONS: More severe UC disease was associated with poorer QoL. Substantial health care utilization, costs, and work productivity impairments were found in this sample of patients with UC. Moreover, greater disease activity was associated with greater health care costs and impairment in work productivity and daily activities.

Colorectal cancer risk assessment and screening recommendation: a community survey of healthcare providers' practice from a patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Family history is a common risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet it is often underused to guide risk assessment and the provision of risk-appropriate CRC screening recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify from a patient perspective health care providers' current practice relating to: (i) assessment of family history of CRC; (ii) notification of "increased risk" to patients at "moderately/potentially high" familial risk; and (iii) recommendation that patients undertake CRC screening. METHODS: 1592 persons aged 56-88 years randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), New South Wales, Australia were mailed a questionnaire. 1117 participants (70%) returned a questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty eight percent of respondents reported ever being asked about their family history of CRC. Ever discussing family history of CRC with a health care provider was significantly more likely to occur for persons with a higher level of education, who had ever received screening advice and with a lower physical component summary score. Fifty one percent of persons at "moderately/potentially high risk" were notified of their "increased risk" of developing CRC. Thirty one percent of persons across each level of risk had ever received CRC screening advice from a health care provider. Screening advice provision was significantly more likely to occur for persons who had ever discussed their family history of CRC with a health care provider and who were at "moderately/potentially high risk". CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions that integrate both the assessment and notification of familial risk of CRC to the wider population are needed. Systematic and cost-effective mechanisms that facilitate family history collection, risk assessment and provision of screening advice within the primary health care setting are required.

Is uptake of genetic testing for colorectal cancer influenced by knowledge of insurance implications?

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether knowledge of insurance implications influenced uptake of genetic testing by participants in a research study of the causes of colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of uptake of genetic testing by participants in the population-based Victorian Colorectal Cancer Family Study during two periods: from 1999 to 2003, when participants were not informed of any potential effect of genetic testing conducted during the study on their eligibility for new insurance policies; and from 2003 to 2006, when the protocol was changed to provide participants with information on the potential effect of genetic testing on insurance eligibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Uptake of genetic testing for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes at a family cancer clinic. RESULTS: The proportion of participants who declined genetic testing among those informed of insurance implications was more than double the proportion among those without this knowledge (29/59 [49%] v 9/47 [19%]; P = 0.002). This difference could not be explained statistically by adjusting for measured putative predictors. CONCLUSION: Identification of people with a mutation in an MMR gene has clinical importance, and such screening may be a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of colorectal cancer in the community. If people are choosing not to obtain genetic information because of how it will affect their eligibility for insurance, reforms to existing insurance practices are indicated.

Relationship between disease severity, quality of life and health-care resource use in a cross-section of Australian patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: New treatments for Crohn's disease are expensive and place economic strain upon health-care systems, and 'value-for-money' needs to be confirmed. This study aimed to correlate disease severity with health-related quality of life and with health-care resource use, to allow evaluation of the cost effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A cross-sectional, non-interventional, pharmacoeconomics study was performed with patients completing questionnaires comprising demographic, disease and health-care utilization questions, together with the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) multi-attribute utility instrument. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was used to assess disease severity. RESULTS: 143 patients with a broad range of disease severity (CDAI 36-446, fistulae 23%) were recruited from referral centers. Stepwise regression analyses demonstrated a negative correlation between disease severity and both IBDQ and AQoL (both P < 0.0001). Age, gender and years since diagnosis did not impact upon either of the quality-of-life outcomes. Mean utility score for non-fistulizing patients with moderate-severe active disease (CDAI >/= 220) was 0.45, mild disease (CDAI 150-219) was 0.68 and for remission (CDAI < 150) was 0.77. Health-care resource utilization increased with increasing CDAI (P < 0.001), with hospital admissions being the largest component cost. Twenty-seven percent of patients (mean age 38 year) received a government benefit, 51% primarily due to their Crohn's disease. CONCLUSION: Crohn's disease severity correlates with poor quality of life. Utility scores determined will permit cost-utility analyses to be made in order to best allocate limited health resources.

"Cancer in the family" and genetic testing: implications for life insurance.

The potential for discrimination when applying for insurance can be of concern for individuals with a family history of cancer or of a genetic disorder and who are considering genetic counselling or genetic testing. The actual incidence of "genetic discrimination", however, is not known, despite considerable media coverage of this issue. The clinical details required by insurers have received less attention. We obtained primary application and personal statement forms used by 21 different underwriters of voluntary life insurance and found substantial differences in the information requested about family history and genetic testing. All insurance applications, however, contained a duty of disclosure that would require revealing the result, if known by the applicant, of a genetic test in a family member. Therefore, decisions made by family members can affect insurance applications, and people considering genetic testing may also need to consider the implications of the results for other family members. Health practitioners should balance the potential benefits of appropriate genetic testing against potential restriction to life and income-protection insurance when advising people about genetic testing.