Cost-effectiveness of preventive aspirin use and intensive downstaging polypectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: A microsimulation modeling study.

OBJECTIVE: Although there is increasing evidence to suggest the cost-effectiveness of aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in the general population, no study has assessed cost-effectiveness in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), who are at high risk of developing CRC. We examined the cost-effectiveness of preventive use of low-dose aspirin in FAP patients who had undergone polypectomy in comparison with current treatment practice. DESIGN: We developed a microsimulation model that simulates a hypothetical cohort of the Japanese population with FAP for 40 years. Three scenarios were created based on three intervention strategies for comparison with no intervention, namely intensive downstaging polypectomy (IDP) of colorectal polyps at least 5.0 mm in diameter, IDP combined with low-dose aspirin, and total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Cost-effective strategies were identified using a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 50,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: Compared with no intervention, all strategies resulted in extended QALYs (21.01-21.43 QALYs per individual) and showed considerably reduced colorectal cancer mortality (23.35-53.62 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals). Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold, IDP with low-dose aspirin was more cost-effective than the other strategies, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 compared with no preventive intervention. These findings were confirmed in both one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the strategy of low-dose aspirin with IDP may be cost-effective compared with IDP-only or IPAA under the national fee schedule of Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of computer-aided detection systems for colonoscopy in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The usefulness of computer-aided detection systems (CADe) for colonoscopy has been increasingly reported. In many countries, however, data on the cost-effectiveness of their use are lacking; consequently, CADe for colonoscopy has not been covered by health insurance. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy using CADe in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a simulation model analysis using Japanese data to examine the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy with and without CADe for a population aged 40-74 years who received colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The rates of receiving FIT screening and colonoscopy following a positive FIT were set as 40% and 70%, respectively. The sensitivities of FIT for advanced adenomas and CRC Dukes' A-D were 26.5% and 52.8-78.3%, respectively. CADe colonoscopy was judged to be cost-effective when its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below JPY 5,000,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Compared to conventional colonoscopy, CADe colonoscopy showed a higher QALY (20.4098 vs. 20.4088) and lower CRC incidence (2373 vs. 2415 per 100,000) and mortality (561 vs. 569 per 100,000). When the CADe cost was set at JPY 1000-6000, the ICER per QALY gained for CADe colonoscopy was lower than JPY 5,000,000 (JPY 796,328-4,971,274). The CADe cost threshold at which the ICER for CADe colonoscopy exceeded JPY 5,000,000 was JPY 6040. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-aided detection systems for colonoscopy has the potential to be cost-effective when the CADe cost is up to JPY 6000. These results suggest that the insurance reimbursement of CADe for colonoscopy is reasonable.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection.

OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) remains unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these procedures for cases of colon/rectal LST-non-granular-type ≥2 cm and LST-granular-mixed-type ≥3 cm. METHODS: We performed a simulation model analysis using parameters based on clinical data from the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, and previous literature. The number of recurrences and surgeries and the required costs for 5 years following ESD and pEMR were assessed. Japanese cost data were used in the base-case analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. The Swedish cost data were used in the scenario analysis. RESULTS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection yielded a considerably lower number of recurrences and surgeries but required a higher cost than pEMR. The recurrence rates following ESD and pEMR were 0.9-1.3% and 21.1-25.9%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for an avoided recurrence and surgery for ESD against pEMR were 376,796-476,496 JPY (3575-4521 USD) and 7,335,436-8,187,476 JPY (69,604-77,689 USD), respectively. PSA demonstrated that the probability of ESD being chosen as a more cost-effective option than pEMR was >50% at willingness-to-pay values of ≥400,000-500,000 JPY (3795-4744 USD) for avoiding a recurrence and ≥9,500,000-10,500,000 JPY (90,143-99,631 USD) for avoiding a surgery. In the scenario analysis, the required cost was also lower for ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest potentially favorable cost-effectiveness of ESD, depending on cost settings and the willingness-to-pay value for avoiding recurrence/surgery.

Cost savings in colonoscopy with artificial intelligence-aided polyp diagnosis: an add-on analysis of a clinical trial (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being implemented in colonoscopy practice, but no study has investigated whether AI is cost saving. We aimed to quantify the cost reduction using AI as an aid in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps. METHODS: This study is an add-on analysis of a clinical trial that investigated the performance of AI for differentiating colorectal polyps (ie, neoplastic versus non-neoplastic). We included all patients with diminutive (≤5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps in the analyses. The average colonoscopy cost was compared for 2 scenarios: (1) a diagnose-and-leave strategy supported by the AI prediction (ie, diminutive rectosigmoid polyps were not removed when predicted as non-neoplastic), and (2) a resect-all-polyps strategy. Gross annual costs for colonoscopies were also calculated based on the number and reimbursement of colonoscopies conducted under public health insurances in 4 countries. RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients with 250 diminutive rectosigmoid polyps (104 neoplastic, 144 non-neoplastic, and 2 indeterminate) were included. AI correctly differentiated neoplastic polyps with 93.3% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, and 95.2% negative predictive value. Thus, 105 polyps were removed and 145 were left under the diagnose-and-leave strategy, which was estimated to reduce the average colonoscopy cost and the gross annual reimbursement for colonoscopies by 18.9% and US$149.2 million in Japan, 6.9% and US$12.3 million in England, 7.6% and US$1.1 million in Norway, and 10.9% and US$85.2 million in the United States, respectively, compared with the resect-all-polyps strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI to enable the diagnose-and-leave strategy results in substantial cost reductions for colonoscopy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and risk score.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: A risk-stratification score may be useful for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, alongside screening colonoscopy (CS) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based CRC screening strategies using CS, FIT, and the Japanese CRC screening score. METHODS: The effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost-effectiveness, and required number of CS procedures were evaluated for screening strategies with primary screening CS (strategy 1), FIT (strategy 2), and the risk score (strategy 3), using a simulation model analysis with two scenarios. In scenario 1, uptake rates for all tests were 60%. In scenario 2, uptake rates for FIT and a risk score were 40%, and those for screening CS and CS following a positive FIT or high risk score were 20% and 70%, respectively. RESULTS: In scenario 1, strategy 1 gained the highest QALYs and required the highest cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained for strategy 1 against the others were lower than 5 000 000 JPY. Strategy 1 required more than twice as many CS procedures as the other strategies. In scenario 2, strategy 3 had the highest QALYs and lowest cost, and strategy 1 had the lowest QALYs and highest cost. CONCLUSIONS: Screening CS has the potential to be the most effective and cost-effective form of CRC screening, although it requires a large number of CS procedures. However, if non-invasive tests are preferred by recipients, other screening strategies, particularly those using the risk score, can be more effective and cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance using Japanese data.

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations vary on postpolypectomy surveillance, and no consensus has been reached even regarding the necessity of risk stratification based on polyp characteristics for surveillance. We examined an optimal postpolypectomy surveillance program by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We performed a Markov model analysis using parameters based on Japanese data and evaluated four postpolypectomy surveillance programs with respect to their effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost-effectiveness and required number of colonoscopies. Two were non-risk-stratified programs with 1-year (program 1) and 3-year (program 2) postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy, and the other two were risk-stratified programs. In program 3, surveillance colonoscopy was performed 3, 10 and 10 years after resection of advanced adenomas, low-risk adenomatous polyps, and no polyps, respectively. In program 4, those intervals were shortened to 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. RESULTS: Risk-stratified programs (3 and 4) yielded higher QALYs with lower costs than non-risk-stratified programs (1 and 2). Program 4 yielded higher QALYs (23.046) and lower required cost (107,717 JPY) than program 3. The required number of colonoscopies for program 4 was 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 times that for programs 1, 2 and 3, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of program 4 being chosen as the most cost-effective was highest. CONCLUSIONS: After polypectomy, risk-stratified colonoscopy surveillance based on the polyp characteristics should be considered. A risk-stratified program with relatively short examination intervals could be effective and cost-effective in Japan, although further investigation and consideration of colonoscopy capacity are required.

Optimal use of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test for population-based colorectal cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis using Japanese data.

OBJECTIVE: There have been few cost-effectiveness analyses of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Japan, and there is no consensus on the optimal use of total colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening with regard to cost-effectiveness and total colonoscopy workload. The present study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using Japanese data to identify the optimal use of total colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening offered to an average-risk population aged 40 years or over. The cost, quality-adjusted life-years and number of total colonoscopy procedures required were evaluated for three screening strategies: (i) a fecal immunochemical test-based strategy; (ii) a total colonoscopy-based strategy; (iii) a strategy of adding population-wide total colonoscopy at 50 years to a fecal immunochemical test-based strategy. RESULTS: All three strategies dominated no screening. Among the three, Strategy 1 was dominated by Strategy 3, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained for Strategy 2 against Strategies 1 and 3 were JPY 293 616 and JPY 781 342, respectively. Within the Japanese threshold (JPY 5-6 million per QALY gained), Strategy 2 was the most cost-effective, followed by Strategy 3; however, Strategy 2 required more than double the number of total colonoscopy procedures than the other strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The total colonoscopy-based strategy could be the most cost-effective for population-based colorectal cancer screening in Japan. However, it requires more total colonoscopy procedures than the other strategies. Depending on total colonoscopy capacity, the strategy of adding total colonoscopy for individuals at a specified age to a fecal immunochemical test-based screening may be an optimal solution.

Cost-effectiveness of total colonoscopy in screening of colorectal cancer in Japan.

Introduction. In Japan, the cost-effectiveness of total colonoscopy (TCS) for primary screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) is unclear. We compared the cost of identifying a patient with CRC using two primary screening strategies: TCS (strategy 1) and the immunochemical fecal test (FIT) (strategy 2). Materials and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed the TCS screening database at our institution from February 2004 to August 2010 (strategy 1, n = 15,348) and the Japanese nationwide survey of CRC screening in 2008 (strategy 2, n = 5,267,443). Results. 112 and 6,838 CRC cases were detected in strategies 1 and 2, costing 2,124,000 JPY and 1,629,000 JPY, respectively. The rate of earlier-stage CRC was higher in strategy 1. Conclusions. The cost was higher using TCS as a primary screening procedure. However, the difference was not excessive, and considering the increased rate of detecting earlier CRC, the use of TCS as a primary screening tool may be cost-effective.