An Observational Analysis of a Novel Digital Rectoscope.

BACKGROUND: This is an analysis of the first 50 in-human uses of a novel digital rigid sigmoidoscope. The technology provides digital image capture, telemedicine capabilities, improved ergonomics, and the ability to biopsy under pneumorectum while maintaining the low cost of conventional rigid sigmoidoscopy. The primary outcome was adverse events, and the secondary outcome was diagnostic view. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent outpatient (n = 25) and surgical rectal assessment (n = 25), with a mean age of 60 years. This included 31 men and 19 women with 12 different clinical use indications. No adverse events were reported, and no defects were reported with the instrumentation. Satisfactory diagnoses were obtained in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, images were captured in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, and biopsies were successfully taken in 13 uses (26%). No adverse events were recorded. Independent reviewers of recorded videos agreed on the quality and diagnostic value of the images with a κ of 0.225 (95% CI, 0.144-0.305) when assessing whether the target pathology was adequately visualized. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: The improved views afforded by digital rectoscopy facilitated a satisfactory clinical diagnosis in 96% of uses. The device was successfully deployed in the operating room and outpatients irrespective of bowel preparation method, where it has the potential to replace flexible sigmoidoscopy for specific use cases. The technology provides a high-quality image and video that can be securely recorded for documentation and medicolegal purposes with agreement between blinded users despite a lack of standardized training and heterogenous pathology. We perceive significant impact of this technology for the assessment of colorectal anastomoses, the office management of colitis, "watch and wait," and for diagnostic support in rectal cancer diagnosis. The technology has significant potential to facilitate proctoring and training, and it now requires prospective trials to validate its diagnostic accuracy against more costly flexible sigmoidoscopy systems.

Enhancing bowel screening: Preventing colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: The prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) attainable from introducing once-in-a-lifetime flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review of relevant available information for the assessment of the impact and resource demands of FSIG in New Zealand. METHODS: The reduction in bowel cancer incidence achievable by one-off FSIG screening from 50 to 59 years of age, an age group for which bowel screening is not currently offered, was reviewed. The prevention of CRC attainable from an offer of screening at 55 years of age in New Zealand was also estimated. The number and cost of the FSIG screening procedures required and referrals for colonoscopies and the savings in treatment were calculated. RESULTS: Annually, about 27,500 FSIG screening procedures would be required if 50% of those turning 55 years of age accepted an offer of once-in-a-lifetime FSIG screening. This would result in three-four-fold fewer people being referred for colonoscopy than in the national 2-yearly faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening programme and subsequently reduce demand for colonoscopy from a false-positive FIT. The number of CRC cases prevented would increase over 17 years to more than 300 per year by 2033. After 10-15 years of screening, the annual savings in health service costs, primarily from CRC prevented, were sufficient to completely fund the FSIG screening. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of FSIG screening in the national bowel screening programme would significantly reduce both the incidence and mortality of CRC in New Zealand, reduce the colonoscopy demand of current bowel screening and reduce long-term health service costs.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes. METHODS: A Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective. RESULTS: Colonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The cost-effectiveness of training US primary care physicians to conduct colorectal cancer screening in family medicine residency programs.

BACKGROUND: Demand for a wide array of colorectal cancer screening strategies continues to outpace supply. One strategy to reduce this deficit is to dramatically increase the number of primary care physicians who are trained and supportive of performing office-based colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies. This study evaluates the clinical and economic implications of training primary care physicians via family medicine residency programs to offer colorectal cancer screening services as an in-office procedure. METHODS: Using previously established clinical and economic assumptions from existing literature and budget data from a local grant (2013), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated that incorporate the costs of a proposed national training program and subsequent improvements in patient compliance. Sensitivity analyses are also conducted. RESULTS: Baseline assumptions suggest that the intervention would produce 2394 newly trained residents who could perform 71,820 additional colonoscopies or 119,700 additional flexible sigmoidoscopies after ten years. Despite high costs associated with the national training program, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain well below standard willingness-to-pay thresholds under base case assumptions. Interestingly, the status quo hierarchy of preferred screening strategies is disrupted by the proposed intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A national overhaul of family medicine residency programs offering training for colorectal cancer screening yields satisfactory incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, the model places high expectations on primary care physicians to improve current compliance levels in the US.

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Several screening tests are available to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. The purpose of this review was to determine how current CRC screening strategies for CRC compare with no screening and whether agreement exists with regard to the cost effectiveness of different strategies. METHODS: Databases were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses focused on CRC screening strategies in the United States and published between May 2007 and February 2014. We analyzed the uses of fecal occult blood, fecal immunochemistry, and stool DNA tests, as well as sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy. A paired comparison of each screening strategy with no screening across each of the studies reviewed was conducted. A series of paired comparisons of the results reported in each of the studies is also included. RESULTS: When compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies evaluated in this review were cost effective. There was disagreement as to which screening strategy was the most cost effective. However, sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal blood testing always dominated either strategy alone. Studies comparing colonoscopy with fecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or both had mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies are more cost effective. Study results disagree as to which screening strategy should be the preferred method.

Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in adequately screened persons older than 75 years but does not address the appropriateness of screening in elderly persons without previous screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine at what ages CRC screening should be considered in unscreened elderly persons and to determine which test is indicated at each age. DESIGN: Microsimulation modeling study. DATA SOURCES: Observational and experimental studies. TARGET POPULATION: Unscreened persons aged 76 to 90 years with no, moderate, and severe comorbid conditions. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: One-time colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In unscreened elderly persons with no comorbid conditions, CRC screening was cost-effective up to age 86 years. Screening with colonoscopy was indicated up to age 83 years, sigmoidoscopy was indicated at age 84 years, and FIT was indicated at ages 85 and 86 years. In unscreened persons with moderate comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 83 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 80 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 81 years, and FIT at ages 82 and 83 years). In unscreened persons with severe comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 80 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 77 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 78 years, and FIT at ages 79 and 80 years). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Results were most sensitive to assuming a lower willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATION: Only persons at average risk for CRC were considered. CONCLUSION: In unscreened elderly persons CRC screening should be considered well beyond age 75 years. A colonoscopy is indicated at most ages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Rate of detection of advanced neoplasms in proximal colon by simulated sigmoidoscopy vs fecal immunochemical tests.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the ability of biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and one-time sigmoidoscopy to detect colon side-specific advanced neoplasms in a population-based, multicenter, nationwide, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We identified asymptomatic men and women, 50-69 years old, through community health registries and randomly assigned them to groups that received a single colonoscopy examination or biennial FIT. Sigmoidoscopy yield was simulated from results obtained from the colonoscopy group, according to the criteria proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial for colonoscopy referral. Patients who underwent FIT and were found to have ≥75 ng hemoglobin/mL were referred for colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from 5059 subjects in the colonoscopy group and 10,507 in the FIT group. The main outcome was rate of detection of any advanced neoplasm proximal to the splenic flexure. RESULTS: Advanced neoplasms were detected in 317 subjects (6.3%) in the sigmoidoscopy simulation group compared with 288 (2.7%) in the FIT group (odds ratio for sigmoidoscopy, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.70; P = .0001). Sigmoidoscopy also detected advanced distal neoplasia in a higher percentage of patients than FIT (odds ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.10; P = .0001). The methods did not differ significantly in identifying patients with advanced proximal neoplasms (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.76; P = .44). This was probably due to the lower performance of both strategies in detecting patients with proximal lesions (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 19.1% of patients and FIT in 14.9% of patients) vs distal ones (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 86.8% of patients and FIT in 33.5% of patients). Sigmoidoscopy, but not FIT, detected proximal lesions in lower percentages of women (especially those 50-59 years old) than men. CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoidoscopy and FIT have similar limitations in detecting advanced proximal neoplasms, which depend on patients' characteristics; sigmoidoscopy underperforms for women 50-59 years old. Screening strategies should be designed on the basis of target population to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00906997.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy are proven to decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Sigmoidoscopy's benefit is limited to the distal colon. Observational data are conflicting regarding the degree to which colonoscopy affords protection against proximal CRC. Our aim was to explore the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative CRC screening strategies in light of the latest published data. METHODS: We performed a contemporary cost-utility analysis using a Markov model validated against data from randomized controlled trials of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Persons at average CRC risk within the general US population were modeled. Screening strategies included those recommended by the United States (US) Preventive Services Task Force, including colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years (FS), annual fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and the combination FS/FIT. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. RESULTS: In the base case, FIT dominated other strategies. The advantage of FIT over FS and COLO was contingent on rates of uptake and adherence that are well above current US rates. Compared with FIT, FS and COLO both cost <$50,000/QALY gained when FIT per-cycle adherence was <50%. COLO cost $56,800/QALY gained vs. FS in the base case. COLO cost <$100,000/QALY gained vs. FS when COLO yielded a relative risk of proximal CRC of <0.5 vs. no screening. In probabilistic analyses, COLO was cost-effective vs. FS at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained in 84% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy may be cost-effective compared with FIT and sigmoidoscopy, depending on the relative rates of screening uptake and adherence and the protective benefit of colonoscopy in the proximal colon. Colonoscopy's cost-effectiveness compared with sigmoidoscopy is contingent on the ability to deliver ~50% protection against CRC in the proximal colon.

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Several colorectal cancer-screening tests are available, but it is uncertain which provides the best balance of risks and benefits within a screening programme. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of a population-based screening programme in Ireland based on (i) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) at ages 55-74, with reflex faecal immunochemical testing (FIT); (ii) biennial FIT at ages 55-74; and (iii) once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) at age 60. METHODS: A state-transition model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for each screening scenario vs no screening. A third party payer perspective was adopted. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: All scenarios would be considered highly cost-effective compared with no screening. The lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER vs no screening euro 589 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained) was found for FSIG, followed by FIT euro 1696) and gFOBT (euro 4428); gFOBT was dominated. Compared with FSIG, FIT was associated with greater gains in QALYs and reductions in lifetime cancer incidence and mortality, but was more costly, required considerably more colonoscopies and resulted in more complications. Results were robust to variations in parameter estimates. CONCLUSION: Population-based screening based on FIT is expected to result in greater health gains than a policy of gFOBT (with reflex FIT) or once-only FSIG, but would require significantly more colonoscopy resources and result in more individuals experiencing adverse effects. Weighing these advantages and disadvantages presents a considerable challenge to policy makers.

Specific histological abnormalities are more likely in biopsies of endoscopically normal large bowel after the age of 60 years.

AIMS: Colonic and rectal biopsies, often taken from an endoscopically normal large bowel, form a significant proportion of the histopathology workload. The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic yield from mucosal biopsies in patients with normal colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, and whether or not diarrhoea is predictive of abnormal histology. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective analysis of pathology requests, endoscopy and pathology reports taken during 1 year was undertaken in a tertiary care hospital for all biopsies from endoscopically normal ileal, colonic and rectal mucosa. Of 626 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria, 602 had at least one colonic or rectal biopsy. Colorectal histology was abnormal in 65 (14.5%) of 447 patients with diarrhoea, while of 155 patients without diarrhoea, histology was abnormal in 17 (11%; P=0.41). Patients older than 60 years had a markedly increased likelihood of a specific histological abnormality [odds ratio 2.76 (1.30-5.79); P=0.0045]. Diagnoses included microscopic colitis, distorted mucosal architecture consistent with inflammatory bowel disease, ischaemia, polyps, mucosal prolapse and schistosomiasis. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy of an endoscopically normal large bowel, and of the normal terminal ileum in isolation, yields little abnormal histology. Diarrhoea per se does not identify patients at higher risk of abnormal histology. Increased age, however, does, and mucosal biopsy in the endoscopically normal colon and rectum may be more cost-effective in patients aged more than 60 years.

Reappraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening in England.

AIM: The aim was to use newly available data to estimate the cost effectiveness and endoscopy requirements of screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC) to inform screening policy in England. METHODS: A state transition model simulated the life experience of a cohort of individuals in the general population of England with normal colon/rectal epithelium through to the development of adenomas and CRC and subsequent death. CRC natural history model parameters and screening test characteristics were estimated simultaneously by a process of model calibration. This process was fitted to observed data on CRC incidence in the absence of screening, data from existing screening programmes, and data from the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening trial. The costs, effects and resource impact were evaluated for a range of screening options involving the guaiac or immunochemical faecal occult blood test (gFOBT/iFOBT) and FS. RESULTS: The model suggests that screening strategies involving FS or iFOBT may produce additional benefits compared with the current policy of biennial gFOBT for 60-74-year-olds. The age at which a single FS screen results in the greatest quality-adjusted life year gain was 55, with similar gains for ages between 52 and 58. Strategies which combined FS and iFOBT showed further benefits and improved economic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies which combine different screening modalities may provide greater clinical and economic benefits. The collection of comprehensive screening data using a uniform format will enable comparative analysis across screening programmes in different countries, will improve our understanding of the disease and will allow identification of optimal screening modalities.

Improving access to colorectal cancer screening through medical philanthropy: feasibility of a flexible sigmoidoscopy health fair for uninsured patients.

OBJECTIVES: Only half of eligible patients in the United States undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as recommended. Hypothesizing that the medical philanthropy platform may be effective in improving access to CRC screening, we aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)-based CRC screening "health fair" for uninsured patients. METHODS: Uninsured patients older than 50 years who had not undergone CRC screening in the preceding 10 years were recruited through local free clinics and health fairs. A standard medical clinic was transformed into a fully functional endoscopy unit. Medicolegal protection for volunteers was obtained through the Florida Department of Health's Volunteer Health Care Provider Program. Unsedated FS with polypectomy was performed. Those with high-risk endoscopic features were given instructions on obtaining a full colonoscopy. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients without access to any form of CRC screening underwent FS. Ninety-four percent had an adequate bowel preparation, although 40% required on-site enema. Eighteen patients had a total of 22 polyps, 4 of which were adenomatous. There were no complications. The total cost of the fair, excluding donated resources such as endoscopes and processors, was $6,531.47, amounting to $126 per patient screened. CONCLUSIONS: Health fair-style CRC screening for uninsured patients is feasible. With improved efficiency, widespread application of CRC screening using the medical philanthropy platform may represent a viable approach to reducing the underuse of CRC screening among the uninsured.

Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk asymptomatic subjects in the United States aged 50 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrollees in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and approval was obtained from the institutional review board at each site. CT colonography performance estimates from the trial were incorporated into three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network CRC microsimulations. Simulated survival and lifetime costs for screening 50-year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with those for guideline-concordant screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus either sensitive unrehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and no screening. Perfect and reduced screening adherence scenarios were considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits were estimated from the U.S. health care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in all three models in both 100% and 50% adherence scenarios. Colonoscopy also was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy, except in the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-year gained). CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals and colonoscopy were net beneficial compared with no screening in all model scenarios. The 5-year screening interval was net beneficial over the 10-year interval except in the MISCAN model when assuming 100% adherence and willingness to pay $50,000 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective than non-CT colonographic screening but net beneficial compared with no screening given model assumptions.

Cost effectiveness and projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening in France.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in France. Only scanty data on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in Europe are available, generating uncertainty over its efficiency. Although immunochemical fecal tests (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (g-FOBT) have been shown to be cost-effective in France, cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening has not yet been addressed. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies using colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), FIT and g-FOBT were compared using a Markov model. A 40 % adherence rate was assumed for all strategies. Colonoscopy costs included anesthesiologist assistance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Probabilistic and value-of-information analyses were used to estimate the expected benefit of future research. A third-payer perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In the reference case analysis, FIT repeated every year was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of €48165 per life-year gained vs. FIT every 2 years, which was the next most cost-effective strategy. Although CCE every 5 years was as effective as FIT 1-year, it was not a cost-effective alternative. Colonoscopy repeated every 10 years was substantially more costly, and slightly less effective than FIT 1-year. When projecting the model outputs onto the French population, the least (g-FOBT 2-years) and most (FIT 1-year) effective strategies reduced the absolute number of annual CRC deaths from 16037 to 12916 and 11217, respectively, resulting in an annual additional cost of €26 million and €347 million, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that FIT 1-year was the optimal choice in 20% of the simulated scenarios, whereas sigmoidoscopy 5-years, colonoscopy, and FIT 2-years were the optimal choices in 40%, 26%, and 14%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A screening program based on FIT 1-year appeared to be the most cost-effective approach for CRC screening in France. However, a substantial uncertainty over this choice is still present.

Predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening over time in 11 states.

OBJECTIVES: We study a cohort of Medicare-insured men and women aged 65+ in the year 2000, who lived in 11 states covered by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries, to better understand various predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: We use multilevel probit regression on two cross-sectional periods (2000-2002, 2003-2005) and include people diagnosed with breast cancer, CRC, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a reference sample without cancer. RESULTS: Men are not universally more likely to be screened than women, and African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics are not universally less likely to be screened than whites. Disparities decrease over time, suggesting that whites were first to take advantage of an expansion in Medicare benefits to cover endoscopic screening for CRC. Higher-risk persons had much higher utilization, while older persons and beneficiaries receiving financial assistance for Part B coverage had lower utilization and the gap widened over time. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for CRC in our Medicare-insured sample was less than optimal, and reasons varied considerably across states. Negative managed care spillovers were observed, demonstrating that policy interventions to improve screening rates should reflect local market conditions as well as population diversity.

Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Programs to promote colorectal cancer screening are common, yet information regarding the cost-effectiveness of such efforts is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. The intervention involved 21,860 patients aged 50 to 80 years across 11 health centers overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients were randomized to receive a mailing that included a tailored letter, educational brochure, and fecal occult blood test kit at baseline and 6 months follow-up. MEASURES: We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of these mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy using internal cost estimates of labor and supplies. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening rates were higher for patients in the intervention compared with control patients (44% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was approximately $5.48 per patient, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $94 per additional patient screened. This estimate ranged from $69 to $156, based on assumptions of the cost of the intervention components, magnitude of intervention effect, age range, and size of the targeted patient population. CONCLUSION: Tailored patient mailings are a cost-effective approach to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening.