The Cost of Guideline Adherence: A Multicenter Analysis of the Financial Implications of Adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force Polypectomy Guidelines.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to determine the financial impact of adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) polypectomy guidelines on physician reimbursement and disposable equipment costs for gastroenterologists in the academic medical center and community practice settings. BACKGROUND: In 2020, USMSTF guidelines on polypectomy were introduced with a strong recommendation for cold snare rather than cold forceps technique for removing diminutive and small polyps. Polypectomy with snare technique reimburses physicians at a higher rate compared with cold forceps and also requires different disposable equipment. The financial implications of adopting these guidelines is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients that underwent screening colonoscopy where polypectomy was performed at an academic medical center (Loma Linda University Medical Center) and community practice medical center (Ascension Providence Hospital) between July 2018 and July 2019 were identified. The polypectomy technique performed during each procedure was determined (forceps alone, snare alone, forceps plus snare) along with the number and size of polyps as well as disposable equipment. Actual and projected provider reimbursement and disposable equipment costs were determined based on applying the new polypectomy guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1167 patients underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy. Adhering to new guidelines would increase estimated physician reimbursement by 5.6% and 12.5% at academic and community practice sites, respectively. The mean increase in physician reimbursement per procedure was significantly higher at community practice compared with the academic setting ($29.50 vs. $14.13, P <0.00001). The mean increase in disposable equipment cost per procedure was significantly higher at the community practice setting ($6.11 vs. $1.97, P <0.00001). CONCLUSION: Adopting new polypectomy guidelines will increase physician reimbursement and equipment costs when colonoscopy with polypectomy is performed.

Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. RESULTS: LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.

Race and Prevalence of Large Bowel Polyps Among the Low-Income and Uninsured in South Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Compared to whites, blacks have higher colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates and are at greater risk for early-onset disease. The reasons for this racial disparity are poorly understood, but one contributing factor could be differences in access to high-quality screening and medical care. AIMS: The present study was carried out to assess whether a racial difference in prevalence of large bowel polyps persists within a poor and uninsured population (n = 233, 124 blacks, 91 whites, 18 other) undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Eligible patients were uninsured, asymptomatic, had no personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and were between the ages 45-64 years (blacks) or 50-64 years (whites, other). We examined the prevalence of any adenoma (conventional, serrated) and then difference in adenoma/polyp type by race and age categories. RESULTS: Prevalence for ≥1 adenoma was 37 % (95 % CI 31-43 %) for all races combined and 36 % in blacks <50 years, 38 % in blacks ≥50 years, and 35 % in whites. When stratified by race, blacks had a higher prevalence of large conventional proximal neoplasia (8 %) compared to whites (2 %) (p value = 0.06) but a lower prevalence of any serrated-like (blacks 18 %, whites 32 %; p value = 0.02) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (blacks 2 %, whites 8 % Chi-square p value; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within this uninsured population, the overall prevalence of adenomas was high and nearly equal by race, but the racial differences observed between serrated and conventional polyp types emphasize the importance of taking polyp type into account in future research on this topic.

Use of colonoscopy for polyp surveillance in Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Professional society guidelines recommend follow-up colonoscopy for patients with resected colonic adenomas. However, adherence to guideline recommendations in routine clinical practice has not been well characterized. METHODS: The authors used a population-based sample of Medicare beneficiaries to identify all patients aged ≥70 years who had a claim for colonoscopy with polypectomy or hot biopsy during the period from 2001 to 2004. Medicare claims through 2009 identified colonoscopy within the following 5 years as well as fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. RESULTS: In total, 12,771 patients were included. At 5 years, 45.7% of patients underwent another colonoscopy, and 32.3% of procedures included a polypectomy. The rates of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema at 5 years were 54%, 3.8%, and 2.9%, respectively. There was a marked decrease in repeat colonoscopy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years with more recent years of index procedures. Other predictors of undergoing repeat colonoscopy were younger age, African American race, and a colonoscopy before the index examination. There was no association with physician specialty. The decreasing use of colonoscopy with time was maintained in a multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of elderly Medicare beneficiaries, there was under use of follow-up colonoscopy at 5 years after polypectomy, and <50% of patients received a repeat examination. In particular, the use of this procedure decreased over the 4-year study period. Coupled with other data indicating the overuse of follow-up colonoscopy in patients without polyps, there appeared to be significant discordance between guidelines and actual practice.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient colonoscopic polypectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Factors that increase the complications arising from colonoscopic polypectomy have been well studied; however, data regarding complications from outpatient polypectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to identify the safety and costeffectiveness of outpatient colonoscopic polypectomy. METHODOLOGY: Consecutive series of 804 patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy for 1,446 polyps were analyzed. Clinical outcomes, complications and medical costs were compared between outpatient (n=731) and planned inpatient groups (n=73) to assess the safety and cost-effectiveness of the colonoscopic polypectomy. The risk factors for polypectomy- related complications were assessed by a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the complication rates between the outpatient polypectomy group (1.1%) and the planned inpatient group (2.7%), and outpatient service was not a significant risk factor of complications in the colonoscopic polypectomy by multivariate analysis. The outcomes of complications were not worsened by outpatient procedures. However, total cost for an outpatient polypectomy for a single polyp without any complication was 37.4% lower than that for a planned inpatient polypectomy, which was a significant reduction (p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic polypectomy can be safely and cost-effectively performed in the outpatient setting with minimal controllable complications.

Peculiarities of diagnosis and treatment in the polyp-cancer sequence.

Colorectal cancer, a public health problem with major social implications, has attracted major economic resources and specialized centers focused in the direction of obtaining an early diagnosis from effective screening means in the last decades. It is obvious that the therapeutic results and the social costs are primarily dependent on the precocity of diagnosis. The present paper aims to bring to attention a number of orientations, which may open a new perspective in approaching the genetic and molecular level of these lesions. Out of these, the value of the molecular screening based on the detection of the APC gene located on the short arm of chromosome 5, a method that allows the selection of the subjects to be subjected to further endoscopic screening is underlined. The optimization of the costs as well as the increased compliance of the subjects to such a method is thus accomplished.

Some diminutive colorectal polyps can be removed and discarded without pathological examination.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Pathological examination of colorectal polyps is useful if clinical management is affected (i. e. when invasive carcinoma is detected or postpolypectomy surveillance interval is guided). Our aim was to assess whether the pathological examination of some diminutive (measuring ≤ 5 mm) polyps can be omitted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy at Pasteur Hospital (Colmar, France) between January and August 2008 were included in this prospective study. Six senior gastroenterologists predicted the future surveillance interval without referring to the result of pathological examination. RESULTS: In all, 350 polyps from 175 patients were removed and analyzed. The endoscopist was able to predict the correct surveillance interval without referring to the result of pathological examination in 118 patients (67.4 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 60.5 - 74.4). The pathological examination of 18.4 % (95 % CI 13.7 - 23.1) of diminutive polyps either associated with a cancer or a polyp measuring ≥ 10 mm or removed in very old or frail patients could be omitted without any consequence for the patient. If diminutive polyps one or two in number were discarded without pathological examination in patients with a personal history of colorectal neoplasm, three patients out of 43 would have a 5-year instead of a 3-year surveillance interval. As a whole, if 44.1 % (95 % CI 38.0 - 50.1) of diminutive polyps were discarded, the surveillance interval would remain identical in 98.3 % (95 % CI 96.4 - 100) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pathological examination of up to 44 % of diminutive polyps (i. e. 33 % of all polyps), can be safely omitted. The pathological examination would be required only for those with suspicious gross appearance, those three or more in number, and those isolated one or two in number that are removed from people without personal history of colorectal neoplasm.

A quantitative assessment of the risks and cost savings of forgoing histologic examination of diminutive polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic prediction of polyp histology is rapidly improving to the point where it may not be necessary to submit all polyps for formal histologic assessment. This study aimed to quantify the expected costs and outcomes of removing diminutive polyps without subsequent pathologic assessment. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of a colonoscopy database for polyp histology; decision models that quantify effects on guideline-recommended surveillance and subsequent costs and consequences. The database was composed of consecutive colonoscopies from 1999 to 2004 at a single-institution tertiary care center. Patients were those found to have at least one diminutive polyp removed during colonoscopy, irrespective of indication. The main outcome measurements include up-front cost savings resulting from forgoing pathologic assessment; frequency and cost of incorrect surveillance intervals based on errors in histologic assessment; number needed to harm (NNH) for perforation and/or interval cancer. RESULTS: Incorrect surveillance intervals were recommended in 1.9% of cases when tissue was submitted for pathologic assessment and 11.8% of cases when it was not. Based on the annual volume of colonoscopy in the US, the annual up-front cost savings of forgoing the pathologic assessment would exceed a billion dollars. An upper estimate on the downstream costs and consequences of forgoing pathology suggests that less than 10% of the up-front savings would be offset and the NNH exceeds 11000. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic diagnosis of polyp histology during colonoscopy and forgoing pathologic examination would result in substantial up-front cost savings. Downstream consequences of the resulting incorrect surveillance intervals appear to be negligible.

Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in the management of the colorectal malignant polyp.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of surgery in the postendoscopic management of low-risk malignant polyps is unclear. Although interobserver variability in the histological diagnosis was shown, its importance is unknown. The purpose of this study was to guide future research on the optimal strategy for low-risk polyps with the use of value-of-information analysis. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was constructed comparing the strategies of referring or not referring (waiting) to surgery patients with low-risk polyps. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the effect of uncertainty about the input parameters. Value-of-information analysis was used to estimate the expected benefit of future research that would eliminate the decision uncertainty. RESULTS: The number of postendoscopic surgeries to prevent 1 cancer-related death was 208. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of surgery vs waiting strategy was $215,291/life-year gained, surgery being a suboptimal choice in the reference case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that surgery was the optimal choice in 61% of the simulated scenarios. Most of the decision uncertainty was related with the combination of histological inaccuracy, prevalence of residual disease, and surgical mortality. The expected societal monetary benefit of further research from the perspective of the United States was estimated to be $1 billion. CONCLUSIONS: The small benefit and the relatively high costs associated with surgery argue against surgical referral for low-risk malignant polyps; however, when a suboptimal histopathological accuracy was simulated, surgery appeared to be the most cost-effective option, prompting the need for further research.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on screening for colorectal neoplasm and management of colorectal cancer in Asia.

BACKGROUND: Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) and colonoscopy are recommended for subjects above 50 years of age for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOBT, FS and colonoscopy on the basis of disease prevalence, compliance rate and cost of screening procedures in Asian countries. METHODS: A hypothetical population of 100 000 persons aged 50 undergoes either FOBT annually, FS every 5 years or colonoscopy every 10 years until the age of 80 years. Patients with positive FOBT or polyp in FS are offered colonoscopy. Surveillance colonoscopy is repeated every 3 years. The treatment cost of CRC, including surgery and chemotherapy, was evaluated. A Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. RESULTS: Assuming a compliance rate of 90%, colonoscopy, FS and FOBT can reduce CRC incidence by 54.1%, 37.1% and 29.3% respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for FOBT (US$6222 per life-year saved) is lower than FS (US$8044 per life-year saved) and colonoscopy (US$7211 per life-year saved). When the compliance rate drops to 50% and 30%, FOBT still has the lowest ICER. CONCLUSION: FOBT is cost-effective compared to FS or colonoscopy for CRC screening in average-risk individuals aged from 50 to 80 years.

[Cost-effectiveness evaluation of predictive molecular diagnostics using the example of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)]. / Kosteneffektivitätsbewertung Prädiktiver Molekulardiagnostik am Beispiel des Hereditären Nichtpolypösen Kolorektalkarzinoms (HNPCC).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Four different diagnostic strategies, with and without various molecular diagnostic tests, are compared and contrasted not only by years gained and the cost of therapy and diagnosis, but also by the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic strategies. METHODOLOGY: A fictitious cohort of 100,000 people, whose genetic pre-disposition leading to the development of colorectal cancer corresponds to a representative average amongst the current population, will be studied from their 1st to their 85th year. This data will be then put through Markov models specifically developed for the study. At the end of the Markov process, it will then be possible to compile a cost-effectiveness report in regard to the various diagnostic and treatment strategies. RESULTS: A tiered diagnosis (with family case history, micro-satellite instability, molecular diagnostic diagnosis of an index person and subsequent genetic analysis of all people at risk) represents the most cost-effective method at a rate of euro 3,867 per year gained. The cost-effectiveness of a purely clinical diagnosis has a rate of euro 4,397 per year gained and is followed by the cost of direct gene testing of people at risk from families at risk at a rate of euro 6,208. The worst level of cost-effectiveness, with a rate of euro 15,705, was shown by nationwide gene screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness of Strategy IV and Strategy II is euro 124,168 per gained year. CONCLUSIONS: With the scenarios put forward we can show that a 65% reduction in gene test costs is necessary in order for a cost-effective nationwide gene screening for HNPCC to take place. The break-even level, however, depends only on a few cost-effectiveness drivers such as screening and therapy costs, proportion of HNPCC of all colorectal cancer and discounting rate. Should these changes (e.g., through a restructured medical environment), then we would see such a change in the break-even cost of a gene test and that a cost-effective nationwide gene screening could be made plausible. In a final evaluation of the use of predictive molecular diagnostics, other dimensions (such as possible psychological problems and discriminatory risks) apart from cost-effectiveness should also be included.

Work and resources needed for endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large sessile colon polyps often are referred for surgical resection, even when amenable to endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to describe the resource use of endoscopic resection of large sessile colon polyps compared with small polyps with respect to physician time and equipment use. METHODS: Retrospectively, procedure time, medication use, and equipment use were recorded for 184 consecutive patients with sessile colorectal polyps 2 cm or larger in size and for 184 consecutive control patients with only sessile polyps less than 2 cm in size or pedunculated polyps. RESULTS: The mean duration of colonoscopy in patients with large sessile colon polyps averaged 51.4 (SD, 25.6) minutes compared with 20.0 (SD, 8.6) minutes for the control group (P < .0001). The large-polyp group required much more equipment to complete the polypectomy (eg, injection catheters and cautery probes) (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the costs of endoscopic large sessile adenoma resection in physician work and equipment are substantially greater than the costs of resection of small adenomas. These costs may be a deterrent to endoscopic resection of large sessile adenomas and may warrant increased reimbursement for those procedures, particularly if predictions that colonoscopic procedures will become more complex in the future are realized.

Colon cancer prevention in Italy: cost-effectiveness analysis with CT colonography and endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of mortality in Italy. Although prevention of CRC is possible, its cost-effectiveness when applied to the Italian population is unknown. Recently, computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has been proposed for CRC screening. AIM: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening in a simulated Italian population with those of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies was compared using a Markov process computer model, in which in a hypothetical population of 100,000 50 year-olds were investigated by CTC, colonoscopy or FS every decade. Outcomes were projected to the Italian national level. RESULTS: CRC incidence reduction was calculated at 40.9%, 38.2%, and 31.8% with colonoscopy, CTC and FS, respectively. As compared to no screening, all screening programs were shown to be cost-saving, allowing a saving of 11 Euro, 17 Euro, and 48 Euro per person with colonoscopy, FS and CTC, respectively. FS appeared to be less cost-effective than CTC, whilst colonoscopy appeared to be an expensive option as compared to CTC. Undiscounted national expenditure was calculated to be 1,042,489,512 Euro, 1,093,268,285 Euro, and 1,198,783,428 Euro for FS, CTC and colonoscopy, respectively, as compared to 695,818,078 Euro without screening. CONCLUSION: CRC screening is cost-saving in Italy, irrespective of the technique applied. CTC appeared to be more cost-effective than FS, and it may also become a valid alternative to colonoscopy.

Drug targets in colonoscopic polypectomy: biological sealants with special reference to fibrin-glue (tissucol).

The increasing outpatient use of colonoscopy in the diagnostic study and prophylaxis of colon diseases has allowed early identification of polypoid neoformations, thus indicating their increased incidence during the asymptomatic phase. In this respect, the application of biological sealants immediately before the polypectomy has represented a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of these preneoplastic lesions. The injection of biological sealants with needle under the polyp peduncle or sub-mucosa has demonstrated a protective action on the electrocoagulated area, an anti-haemorrhagic effect owing to the strengthened seal of the eschar that is formed, and a facilitated tissue regeneration, respectively. The author report his experience acquired over the past five years with regard to the use of biological sealant in colonoscopic polypectomy and conclude that biological sealants, a human fibrin glue, which utilises components of the human plasma, may allow a more generous removal of neoformations, the absence of post-polypectomy complications and, consequently, the dramatic reduction of time of patient's admission in the hospital. In fact, all patients were discharged after two hours from polypectomy, thus implying a better quality of life for patients, in the absence of post-operative complications and a reduction of non-medical costs.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps: An Economic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in Ontario. Most cases of colorectal cancer are preventable through early diagnosis and the removal of precancerous polyps. Colon capsule endoscopy is a non-invasive test for detecting colorectal polyps. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the impact on the Ontario health budget of implementing colon capsule endoscopy for detecting advanced colorectal polyps among adult patients who have been referred for computed tomographic (CT) colonography. METHODS: We performed an original cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the additional cost of CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy resulting from misdiagnoses. We generated diagnostic accuracy data from a clinical evidence-based analysis (reported separately), and we developed a deterministic Markov model to estimate the additional long-term costs and life-years lost due to false-negative results. We then also performed a budget impact analysis using data from Ontario administrative sources. One-year costs were estimated for CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy (replacing all CT colonography procedures, and replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy within the previous year). We conducted this analysis from the payer perspective. RESULTS: Using the point estimates of diagnostic accuracy from the head-to-head study between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography, we found the additional cost of false-positive results for colon capsule endoscopy to be $0.41 per patient, while additional false-negatives for the CT colonography arm generated an added cost of $116 per patient, with 0.0096 life-years lost per patient due to cancer. This results in an additional cost of $26,750 per life-year gained for colon capsule endoscopy compared with CT colonography. The total 1-year cost to replace all CT colonography procedures with colon capsule endoscopy in Ontario is about $2.72 million; replacing only those CT colonography procedures in patients with an incomplete colonoscopy in the previous year would cost about $740,600 in the first year. LIMITATIONS: The difference in accuracy between colon capsule endoscopy and CT colonography was not statistically significant for the detection of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm in diameter), according to the head-to-head clinical study from which the diagnostic accuracy was taken. This leads to uncertainty in the economic analysis, with results highly sensitive to changes in diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of colon capsule endoscopy for use in patients referred for CT colonography is $26,750 per life-year, assuming an increased sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy. Replacement of CT colonography with colon capsule endoscopy is associated with moderate costs to the health care system.

Motion - computerized tomographic colography is a better method for screening for polyps: arguments for the motion.

Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem that is amenable to prevention and early treatment. Traditional screening techniques - fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema and colonoscopy - each have limitations in terms of diagnostic accuracy, cost and/or patient acceptability. Compliance with recommendations for screening has been poor, in part, because of negative perceptions about the available modalities. Virtual colonoscopy, or computerized tomographic colography, is a minimally invasive technique that safely evaluates the entire colon and does not require sedation. Thorough cleansing as well as immobilization and air insufflation of the colon is crucial to a successful examination. Sensitivity and specificity rates are reasonable, compared with conventional colonoscopy, and it has been shown that the latter technique can be averted in over two-thirds of cases, with few false-negative examinations. Most patients find virtual colonoscopy more acceptable than the conventional technique, and would prefer it if a repeat procedure were warranted. An economic analysis that found that computerized tomographic colography was less cost effective than conventional colonoscopy did not consider the indirect costs of the latter, which is an important limitation. Virtual colonoscopy is a novel radiological technique that may revolutionize screening for colorectal cancer.