Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Assessment of Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer as an Adjunctive Non-invasive Diagnostic Method.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant contributor to cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Biopsy remains the gold standard for CRC diagnosis, but invasive testing may not be preferred as an initial diagnostic procedure. Therefore, alternative non-invasive approaches are needed. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) present in the bloodstream have great potential as a non-invasive diagnostic marker for CRC patients. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic potential of CTC in CRC as an adjunctive diagnostic method using a subjective manual identification method and laser capture microdissection at 40x magnification. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on adult patients suspected to have CRC at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, between November 2020 and March 2021. CTC analysis was performed using the negative selection immunomagnetic method with Easysep™ and the CD44 mesenchymal tumor marker. The identification and quantification of CTC were conducted manually and subjectively, with three repetitions of cell counting per field of view at 40x magnification. RESULTS: Of 80 subjects, 77.5% were diagnosed with CRC, while 7.5% and 15% exhibited adenomatous polyps and inflammatory/hyperplastic polyps, respectively. The diagnostic analysis of CTC for detecting CRC (compared to polyps) using a CTC cutoff point of >1.5 cells/mL suggested sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 50%, 88.89%, and 93.94%. Additionally, the negative predictive value (NPV), as well as the positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) were 34.04%, 4.5, and 0.56, respectively. The subjective manual identification and quantification of CTC were performed at 40x magnification using laser capture microdissection. CONCLUSION: This study assessed the diagnostic potential of CTC examination in CRC as an adjunctive diagnostic method using the subjective manual identification method and laser capture microdissection at 40x magnification. Despite the limitations associated with subjective cell counting, the results showed 50% sensitivity and 88.89% specificity in diagnosing CRC. Further studies are needed to optimize the manual identification process and validate the clinical utility of CTC analysis in CRC patients.

Assessment of the use of computed tomography colonography in early detection of peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastric cancer: A prospective cohort study.

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is one of the most frequent forms of gastric cancer recurrence. In this study, we aimed to use computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) to detect signs of PM earlier in patients in whom PM was suspected but not yet diagnosed. CTC was used to evaluate patients with clinical symptoms or general CT findings that were suspicious but not sufficient to confirm PM. In total, 18 patients with suspected PM were enrolled. Ten patients (55.6%) had PM on CTC. Abnormal colonic deformities were identified at locations other than those of the lesions detected by general CT in seven patients. The sensitivity and specificity of CTC for the detection of PM were 83.3% and 100%, respectively. The median overall survival after CTC was 201 days in the CTC-positive group, which was significantly shorter than that in the CTC-negative group (945 days, p = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, a positive CTC finding was the only factor independently associated with survival (p = 0.005). According to our experience with 18 patients, CTC can be an alternative to conventional imaging for early detection of PM. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to confirm and validate these findings. University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR): Registration number: UMIN000044167.

Use of Screening CT Colonography by Age and Race: A Study of Potential Access Barriers Related to Medicare Noncoverage Based on Data From the ACR's National CT Colonography Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the use of screening CT colonography (CTC) examinations by age comparing individuals of Medicare-eligible age to younger cohorts and to determine if the association between use of CTC and Medicare-eligible age varies by race. Although the Affordable Care Act requires commercial insurance coverage of screening CTC, Medicare does not cover screening CTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the ACR's CTC registry, the distribution of procedures by age was evaluated using a negative binomial model with patient age (to capture overall trend), indicator of Medicare-eligible age (to capture immediate changes in trend at age 65), and their interaction (to capture gradual changes after age 65) as independent variables. The association between the number of screening CTCs and age was compared by racial identity. RESULTS: The CTC registry contained data on 12,648 screening examinations. Between ages 52 and 64, the number of screening examinations increased; each additional age year was associated with a 5.3% (P < .001) increase in the number of screenings. However, after age 65, the number of screening examinations decreased by -6.9% per additional year of age above 65 compared with the trend between ages 52 and 64 (P < .001). The modal age group for CTC use was 65 to 69 years in white and 55 to 59 in black individuals. CONCLUSION: After age 65, the number of screening CTC examinations decreased, likely due, at least in part, to lack of Medicare coverage. Medicare noncoverage may have a disproportionate impact on black patients and other racial minorities.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. RESULTS: Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

Colonoscopía virtual de screening de cáncer colorrectal en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular / Virtual colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients with diverticular disease

CONTEXTO: El cáncer colorrectal (CCR) es un problema de salud pública en todo el mundo y particularmente em nuestro país, dada su elevada incidencia. En Argentina, según las estimaciones de incidencia del Observatorio Global de Cáncer de la OMS se estimaron 15.692 casos nuevos para el año 2018 en ambos sexos, concentrando el 13% del total de tumores, siendo el segundo cáncer más frecuente, por detrás del cáncer de mama en mujeres y el cáncer de próstata en hombres. En Argentina el CCR es el segundo cáncer de mayor mortalidad (luego del cáncer de pulmón), con más de 7.000 fallecimientos anuales. TECNOLOGÍA: La colonoscopía tomográfica computarizada, también conocida como colonoscopía virtual, fue desarrollada como un método mínimamente invasivo para examinar el colon.5 Se ha sugerido el uso de esta prueba para la detección de anomalías en el colon y el recto como por ejemplo, CCR y pólipos. Esta tecnología implica el uso de tomografía computarizada helicoidal (TC) e imágenes generadas por computadora para producir imágenes bidimensionales y tridimensionales (3D) de alta resolución del colon y el recto. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar la evidencia disponible acerca del desempeño diagnóstico, la eficacia, seguridad y aspectos relacionados a las políticas de cobertura del uso de colonoscopia virtual para screening de CCR en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en las principales bases de datos bibliográficas, en buscadores genéricos de internet, y financiadores de salud. Se priorizó la inclusión de revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados (ECAs), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS), evaluaciones económicas, guías de práctica clínica (GPC) y políticas de cobertura de diferentes sistemas de salud. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron cuatro RS, un ECA, seis GPC, dos informes de ETS, una RS de evaluaciones económicas, y 12 informes de políticas de cobertura de CTC en screening de CCR en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. CONCLUSIONES: No se encontraron estudios que comparen de forma directa la utilización de colonoscopía virtual por tomografía computarizada contra otros métodos diagnósticos (excluyendo enema de bario de doble contraste) para el screening de cáncer colorrectal en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. La decisión del método a utilizar podría basarse en consideraciones clínicas y preferencia de los pacientes y cuestiones como la accesibilidad a las diferentes modalidades de cribado. Se encontró evidencia de moderada calidad que sugiere que la colonoscopía virtual tiene uma sensibilidad superior al enema de bario de doble contraste en el screening de cáncer colorrectal em la población general y podría inferirse que también la tendría en pacientes con enfermedad diverticular. Financiadores públicos y privados de países de altos ingresos cubren el uso de colonoscopía virtual en el screening de cáncer colorrectal en pacientes con antecedentes de videocolonoscopía incompleta o en los que la videocolonoscopía se encuentra contraindicada. Esta tecnología no es mencionada en el Programa Médico Obligatorio ni es reintegrada por el Sistema Único de Reintegro de la Argentina. Esta tecnología se encuentra recomendada por guías de práctica clínica como técnica de screening de cáncer colorrectal y en Argentina el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer la recomienda como uma alternativa válida para el tamizaje luego de una videocolonoscopía incompleta.

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance with CT colonography after resection of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance following colorectal cancer (CRC) resection uses optical colonoscopy (OC) to detect intraluminal disease and CT to detect extracolonic recurrence. CT colonography (CTC) might be an efficient use of resources in this situation because it allows for intraluminal and extraluminal evaluations with one test. DESIGN: We developed a simulation model to compare lifetime costs and benefits for a cohort of patients with resected CRC. Standard of care involved annual CT for 3 years and OC for years 1, 4 and every 5 years thereafter. For the CTC-based strategy, we replace CT+OC at year 1 with CTC. Patients with lesions greater than 6 mm detected by CTC underwent OC. Detection of an adenoma 10 mm or larger was followed by OC at 1 year, then every 3 years thereafter. Test characteristics and costs for CTC were derived from a clinical study. Medicare costs were used for cancer care costs as well as alternative test costs. We discounted costs and effects at 3% per year. RESULTS: For persons with resected stage III CRC, the standard-of-care strategy was more costly (US$293) and effective (2.6 averted CRC cases and 1.1 averted cancer deaths per 1000) than the CTC-based strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$55 500 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Our analysis was most sensitive to the sensitivity of CTC for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger and assumptions about disease progression. CONCLUSION: In a simulation model, we found that replacing the standard-of-care approach to postdiagnostic surveillance with a CTC-based strategy is not an efficient use of resources in most situations.

An observational study to compare the utilisation of computed tomography colonography with optical colonoscopy as the first diagnostic imaging tool in patients with suspected colorectal cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the initial colonic investigation in patients with low-to-intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A non-randomised, prospective single-centre study recruited 180 participants to compare the cost implications of two clinical pathways used in the diagnosis of low-to-intermediate risk of CRC that differ in the initial diagnostic test, either CTC or OC. Costs were compared using generalised linear models (GLM) and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes assessed access to care and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Mean (SD, n) cost at 6 months post-recruitment per participant was £991 (£316, n=105) for the OC group and £645 (£607, n=68) for the CTC group, leading to an estimated cost difference of -£370 (95% CI: -£554, -£185, p<0.001). Assuming a £20,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold, there was a 91.4% probability of CTC being cost-effective at month 6. The utilisation of CTC led to improved access to care, with a shorter mean time from referral from primary care to results (6.3 days difference, p=0.005). No differences in patient satisfaction were detected between both groups. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of CTC as the first-line investigation for patients with low-to-intermediate risk of CRC has the potential to release OC capacity, of pivotal importance for patients more likely to benefit from an invasive diagnostic approach.

Geographic Dispersion and Rural Versus Urban Utilization of CT Colonography in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the geographic dispersion of CT colonography (CTC) as well as differences in CTC utilization in rural versus urban areas in individuals with commercial insurance. METHODS: Claims data from approximately 18.5 million commercially insured individuals across the United States were used to determine CTC utilization based on geographic area. Geographic areas were defined as metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and statewide non-MSAs. Utilization rates per 100,000 covered person-years were calculated for each geographic area for both screening and diagnostic CTC using 2017 data (the most recent full-year data available). Differences in CTC utilization between MSAs (urban) and non-MSAs (rural) were evaluated using weighted multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: CTC is widely dispersed across the United States with substantial geographic variability. Utilization of screening CTC was considerably lower among individuals residing in rural areas compared with those in urban areas (adjusted odds ratio = 0.353, P = .005). For individuals aged 50 to 64 years, screening CTC utilization was 2.38 per 100,000 in rural areas versus 6.67 per 100,000 in urban areas (P = .005). Utilization of diagnostic CTC was also lower in rural compared with urban areas, though this difference was not statistically significant (8.40 per 100,000 versus 13.11 per 100,000 respectively, P = .070). CONCLUSIONS: Although CTC is performed widely across the United States, utilization is generally low and varies substantially based on geographic region. CTC utilization is lower among individuals in rural compared with urban areas.

Assessment of Endoscopic Healing by Using Advanced Technologies Reflects Histological Healing in Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported that ulcerative colitis [UC] patients with endoscopic mucosal healing may still have histological inflammation. We investigated the relationship between mucosal healing defined by modified PICaSSO [Paddington International Virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre], Mayo Endoscopic Score [MES] and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy [pCLE] with histological indices in UC. METHODS: A prospective study enrolling 82 UC patients [male 66%] was conducted. High-definition colonoscopy was performed to evaluate the activity of the disease with MES assessed with High-Definition MES [HD-MES] and modified PICaSSO and targeted biopsies were taken; pCLE was then performed. Receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curves were plotted to determine the best thresholds for modified PICaSSO and pCLE scores that predicted histological healing according to the Robarts Histopathology Index [RHI] and ECAP 'Extension, Chronicity, Activity, Plus' histology score. RESULTS: A modified PICaSSO of ≤ 4 predicted histological healing at RHI ≤ 3, with sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the ROC curve [AUROC] of 89.8%, 95.7%, 91.5% and 95.9% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUROC of HD-MES to predict histological healing by RHI were 81.4%, 95.7%, 85.4% and 92.1%, respectively. A pCLE ≤ 10 predicted histological healing with sensitivity of 94.9%, specificity of 91.3%, accuracy of 93.9% and AUROC of 96.5%. An ECAP of ≤ 10 was predicted by modified PICaSSO ≤ 4 with accuracy of 91.5% and AUROC of 95.9%. CONCLUSION: Histological healing by RHI and ECAP is accurately predicted by HD-MES and modified virtual electronic chromoendoscopy PICaSSO, endoscopic score; and the use of pCLE did not improve the accuracy any further.

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of a coding system for reporting CT colonography.

AIM: To validate a coding system implemented to summarise computed tomography colonography (CTC) findings for the detection of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) by assessing interobserver variability and also to evaluate any weaknesses through qualitative analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CTC investigations over a 6-month period (01/07/2016 to 31/12/2016) were analysed retrospectively. Each study was read initially by an advanced practitioner radiographer with a final report issued by a consultant gastrointestinal radiologist. Rates of interobserver agreement, using the kappa statistic, provided a quantitative assessment of levels of agreement. Areas of poor interobserver agreement were identified for further qualitative assessment. RESULTS: The present study included 1,321 CTC procedures and the mean age of patients was 68.4 years (range 28-96 years). Percentage agreement for colonic coding was 90% and for extra-colonic coding 47%. This corresponds to kappa scores of 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.22 (fair agreement), respectively. Reasons and examples of disagreement in the colonic coding are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: High interobserver agreement was observed for C coding, suggesting it is a reproducible method of classifying intra-colonic CTC findings. Some of the difference in classifying extra-colonic findings is the perceived importance of incidental findings between readers, as well as differences in skill set; however, some themes recurred in areas of disagreement and recommendations for refining and improving the coding system are provided.

Progress of colorectal cancer screening in United States: Past achievements and future challenges.

The United States has seen progress with colorectal cancer with both falling incidence and mortality rates. Factoring into this decline, the significance of early detection and removal of precancerous lesions through screening must be underscored. With the advancement of screening modalities, attention has been directed towards optimizing the quality of screening and detecting adenomas. Colorectal cancer screening has been a major agenda item for national gastroenterology societies, culminating in a major victory with passage of the Balanced Budget Act that allowed for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy as the primary screening modality was solidified in the 1990s after landmark studies demonstrated its superiority over modalities for detecting precancerous polyps. Despite progress, colorectal cancer screening disparities between race and gender continue to exist. Legislative efforts are on-going and include the SCREEN Act and Dent Act that aim to further improve access to screening. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable has launched colorectal cancer screening initiatives targeting at risk populations. Today, the current goal of these initiatives is to reach colorectal screening rate of 80% of eligible patients by 2018. With these initiatives, efforts to narrow the gaps in screening disparities and lower overall mortality have been prioritized and continued by the medical community. This review article details colorectal cancer screening progress to date and highlights major studies and initiatives that have solidified its success in the United States.

Assessment of isocenter alignment during CT colonography: Implications for clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Optimization of image quality and patient radiation dose is achieved in part by positioning the patient at the isocenter of the CT gantry. The aim of this study was to establish whether there was increased isocenter misalignment (IM) in CT colonography (CTC) scans by comparing patient position during the prone part of a CTC to patient position during renal stone protocol CT (CT-KUB) and patient position during the supine part of a CTC to patient position during abdominopelvic CT (CT-AP). METHODS: Two hundred and twenty two consecutive outpatient adult CTC studies performed between January and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Automated dose-tracking software was used to quantify IM in the x and y planes. Renal stone CT-KUB (n = 100) and standard CT-AP (n = 100) were used as comparison studies. RESULTS: IM during CTC was significantly greater in the y-axis compared with the x-axis for both prone (p = 0.002) and supine (p < 0.001) scanning. IM was significantly greater during prone CTC compared with CT-KUB (p = 0.008) and during supine CTC compared with CT-AP (p = 0.0001). IM was shown to be slightly greater in studies performed by more experienced radiographers (p = 0.04). IM was not associated with patient age, gender or size (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Isocenter misalignment is greater during CT colonography compared with CT-KUB or CT-AP. Strategies for improving patient positioning could include radiographer education and automated patient centering solutions.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Is the Virtual Colonoscopy a Replacement for Optical Colonoscopy?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the viability of colon cancer screening with computed tomography colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy. DATA SOURCES: Clinical guidelines, published medical research. CONCLUSION: Virtual colonoscopy, under the right circumstances, is an accurate viable screening tool for patients who may not otherwise desire to or are not able to participate in traditional colonoscopy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses should be aware that routine colon cancer screening is recommended starting at age 50. In addition to the traditional colonoscopy, there are other options if a patient is unwilling or unable to undergo optical colon screening. Nurses should discuss the positive and negative aspects of different types of colon screening and teach proper bowel preparation for colon screening.

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.

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Does Computed Tomography-Based Virtual Colonoscopy Improve the Accuracy of Preoperative Assessment Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women Managed for Colorectal Endometriosis?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether combining computed tomography-based virtual colonoscopy (CTC) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves preoperative assessment of colorectal endometriosis. DESIGN: Retrospective study using prospectively recorded data (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Seventy-one women treated for colorectal endometriosis managed between June 2015 and May 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Patients included in our study underwent colorectal surgery for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum or the sigmoid colon and had preoperative assessment using MRI and CTC. To establish the correlation between preoperative and intraoperative findings, the concordance kappa index was used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperative data provided by MRI, CTC, and a combination of both were compared with intraoperative findings. All 71 patients had a total of 105 endometriotic intestinal lesions intraoperatively confirmed. Some 71.2% of rectal nodules and 60.0% of sigmoid nodules infiltrated the muscularis propria of the intestinal wall, with most infiltrating between 25% and 50% of the rectal circumference; 73% of rectal nodules and 96% of sigmoid nodules led to varying degrees of stenosis. The concordance between intraoperative and preoperative findings concerning the presence of rectal nodules was high, at .88 when associating CTC with MRI, whereas each imaging technique taken individually provided lower concordance coefficients. In our study 80.3% of patients underwent the procedure that had been preoperatively planned. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that associating MRI with CTC leads to improved accuracy in preoperative assessment of colorectal endometriosis and in subsequent preoperative choice of surgical procedures on the digestive tract.