Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026).

Managing the Increasing Burden of Atrial Fibrillation through Integrated Care in Primary Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Introduction: Integrated care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. Methods: Dutch primary care practices were randomised to provide integrated care for AF patients or usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon to estimate incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis was performed, imputing missing questionnaires for a large group of usual care patients. Results: 522 patients from 15 intervention practices were compared to 425 patients from 11 usual care practices. No effect on QALYs was seen, while mean costs indicated a cost reduction between €865 (95% percentile interval (PI) -€5730 to €3641) and €1343 (95% PI -€6534 to €3109) per patient per 2 years. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged between 36% and 54%. In the sensitivity analysis, this increased to 95%-99%. Discussion: Results should be interpreted with caution due to missing information for a large proportion of usual care patients. Conclusion: The higher costs from extra primary care consultations were likely outweighed by cost reductions for other resources, yet this study doesn't give sufficient clarity on the cost-effectiveness of integrated AF care.

Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be €8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, €7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, €6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and €5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were €26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and €25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, €752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.

Socioeconomic differences in participation and diagnostic yield within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical testing.

BACKGROUND: CRC mortality rates are higher for individuals with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). Screening could influence health inequalities. We therefore aimed to investigate SES differences in participation and diagnostic yield of FIT screening. METHODS: All invitees in 2014 and 2015 in the Dutch national CRC screening programme were included in the analyses. We used area SES as a measure for SES and divided invitees into quintiles, with Quintile 1 being the highest SES. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the participation rate, positivity rate, colonoscopy uptake, positive predictive value (PPV) and detection rate across the SES groups. RESULTS: Participation to FIT screening was significantly lower for Quintile 5 (67.0%) compared to the other Quintiles (73.0% to 75.1%; adjusted OR quintile 5 versus quintile 1: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.72-0.74), as well as colonoscopy uptake after a positive FIT (adjusted OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.69-0.77). The detection rate per FIT participant for advanced neoplasia gradually increased from 3.3% in Quintile 1 to 4.0% in Quintile 5 (adjusted OR 1.20%, 95%CI 1.16-1.24). As a result of lower participation, the yield per invitee was similar for Quintile 5 (2.04%) and Quintile 1 (2.00%), both being lower than Quintiles 2 to 4 (2.20%-2.28%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening has the potential to reduce health inequalities in CRC mortality, because of a higher detection in participants with a lower SES. However, in the Dutch screening programme, this is currently offset by the lower participation in this group.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs. METHODS: We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality. RESULTS: The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population. CONCLUSION: Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

Residual cardiovascular risk reduction guided by lifetime benefit estimation in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

AIMS: To determine the (cost)-effectiveness of blood pressure lowering, lipid-lowering, and antithrombotic therapy guided by predicted lifetime benefit compared to risk factor levels in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: For all patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease in the UCC-SMART cohort (1996-2018; n = 7697) two treatment strategies were compared. The lifetime benefit-guided strategy was based on individual estimation of gain in cardiovascular disease (CVD)-free life with the SMART-REACH model. In the risk factor-based strategy, all patients were treated the following: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) < 1.8 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, and antithrombotic medication. Outcomes were evaluated for the total cohort using a microsimulation model. Effectiveness was evaluated as total gain in CVD-free life and events avoided, cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectivity ratio (ICER). In comparison to baseline treatment, treatment according to lifetime benefit would lead to an increase of 24 243 CVD-free life years [95% confidence interval (CI) 19 980-29 909] and would avoid 940 (95% CI 742-1140) events in the next 10 years. For risk-factor based treatment, this would be an increase of 18 564 CVD-free life years (95% CI 14 225-20 456) and decrease of 857 (95% CI 661-1057) events. The ICER of lifetime benefit-based treatment with a treatment threshold of ≥1 year additional CVD-free life per therapy was €15 092/QALY gained and of risk factor-based treatment €9933/QALY gained. In a direct comparison, lifetime benefit-based treatment compared to risk factor-based treatment results in 1871 additional QALYs for the price of €36 538/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Residual risk reduction guided by lifetime benefit estimation results in more CVD-free life years and more CVD events avoided compared to the conventional risk factor-based strategy. Lifetime benefit-based treatment is an effective and potentially cost-effective strategy for reducing residual CVD risk in patients with clinical manifest vascular disease.

18F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC).

Importance: The optimal staging for gastric cancer remains a matter of debate. Objective: To evaluate the value of 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in addition to initial staging by means of gastroscopy and CT in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective, observational cohort study included 394 patients with locally advanced, clinically curable gastric adenocarcinoma (≥cT3 and/or N+, M0 category based on CT) between August 1, 2017, and February 1, 2020. Exposures: All patients underwent an FDG-PET/CT and/or SL in addition to initial staging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of patients in whom the intent of treatment changed based on the results of these 2 investigations. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic performance, number of incidental findings on FDG-PET/CT, morbidity and mortality after SL, and diagnostic delay. Results: Of the 394 patients included, 256 (65%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.6 (10.7) years. A total of 382 patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and 357 underwent SL. Treatment intent changed from curative to palliative in 65 patients (16%) based on the additional FDG-PET/CT and SL findings. FDG-PET/CT detected distant metastases in 12 patients (3%), and SL detected peritoneal or locally nonresectable disease in 73 patients (19%), with an overlap of 7 patients (2%). FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 33% (95% CI, 17%-53%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%) in detecting distant metastases. Secondary findings on FDG/PET were found in 83 of 382 patients (22%), which led to additional examinations in 65 of 394 patients (16%). Staging laparoscopy resulted in a complication requiring reintervention in 3 patients (0.8%) without postoperative mortality. The mean (SD) diagnostic delay was 19 (14) days. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest an apparently limited additional value of FDG-PET/CT; however, SL added considerably to the staging process of locally advanced gastric cancer by detection of peritoneal and nonresectable disease. Therefore, it may be useful to include SL in guidelines for staging advanced gastric cancer, but not FDG-PET/CT.

Interpretation and adherence to the updated risk-stratified guideline for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy - a nationwide survey.

Background and study aims Low adherence to the Dutch guideline for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy led to release of a new guideline in 2013. This new guideline was risk-stratified at a more detailed level than the previous one to achieve more efficient use of colonoscopy resources. This study assessed the feasibility of the risk-stratified guideline by evaluating correct interpretation of and adherence to this guideline. Methods Based on semi-structured interviews with 10 gastroenterologists, we developed an online survey to evaluate gastroenterologists' recommendations for surveillance in 15 example cases of patients with polyps. If recommended intervals differed from the new guideline, respondents were asked to indicate their motives for doing so. Results Ninety-one of 592 (15.4 %) invited gastroenterologists responded to at least one case, of whom 84 (14.2 %) completed the survey. Gastroenterologists gave a correct recommendation in a median of 10 of 15 cases and adherence per case ranged from 14 % to 95 % (median case 76 %). The two cases that addressed management of serrated polyps were least often answered correctly (14 % and 28 % correct answers). Discrepancies were mainly due to misinterpretation of the guideline with respect to serrated polyps (48 %) or misreading of the questions (30 %). Conclusions Median adherence to the updated colonoscopy surveillance guideline of 76 % seems reasonable, and is higher than adherence to the previous guideline (range: 22 %-80 %, median 59 %). This shows that detailed (more complex) risk stratification for designation of a surveillance interval is feasible. Adherence could potentially be improved by clarifying correct interpretation of serrated polyps.

Quality Monitoring of a FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment is crucial for consistent program performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs using fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). However, literature on the consistency of FIT performance in laboratory medicine was lacking. This study examined the consistency of FIT in testing positive or detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) for different specimen collection devices, lot reagents, and laboratories. METHODS: All participants with a FIT sample with a cutoff concentration of 47 µg Hb/g feces in the Dutch CRC screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included in the analyses. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds ratios of collection devices, reagents, and laboratories on testing positive or detecting AN and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: In total, 87519 (6.4%) of the 1371169 participants tested positive. Positivity rates and detection rates of AN differed between collection devices and reagents (all P < 0.01). In contrast, PPVs were not found to vary between collection devices, reagents, or laboratories (all P > 0.05). Positivity rates showed a small difference for laboratories (P = 0.004) but not for detection rates of AN. Size of the population affected by the deviating positivity rates was small (0.1% of the total tested population). CONCLUSIONS: Variations were observed in positivity and detection rates between collection devices and reagents, but there was no detected variation in PPV. Although the overall population effect of these variations on the screened population is expected to be modest, there is room for improvement.

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.

Real-Time Monitoring of Results During First Year of Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and Optimization by Altering Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Levels.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After careful pilot studies and planning, the national screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC), with biennial fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), was initiated in The Netherlands in 2014. A national information system for real-time monitoring was developed to allow for timely evaluation. Data were collected from the first year of this screening program to determine the importance of planning and monitoring for optimal screening program performance. METHODS: The national information system of the CRC screening program kept track of the number of invitations sent in 2014, FIT kits returned, and colonoscopies performed. Age-adjusted rates of participation, the number of positive test results, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for advanced neoplasia were determined weekly, quarterly, and yearly. RESULTS: In 2014, there were 741,914 persons invited for FIT; of these, 529,056 (71.3%; 95% CI, 71.2%-71.4%) participated. A few months into the program, real-time monitoring showed that rates of participation and positive test results (10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.8%) were higher than predicted and the PPV was lower (42.1%; 95% CI, 41.3%-42.9%) than predicted based on pilot studies. To reduce the burden of unnecessary colonoscopies and alleviate colonoscopy capacity, the cut-off level for a positive FIT result was increased from 15 to 47 µg Hb/g feces halfway through 2014. This adjustment decreased the percentage of positive test results to 6.7% (95% CI, 6.6%-6.8%) and increased the PPV to 49.1% (95% CI, 48.3%-49.9%). In total, the first year of the Dutch screening program resulted in the detection of 2483 cancers and 12,030 advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Close monitoring of the implementation of the Dutch national CRC screening program allowed for instant adjustment of the FIT cut-off levels to optimize program performance.

Nonbleeding adenomas: Evidence of systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test results and their implications for screening effectiveness-A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: If some adenomas do not bleed over several years, they will cause systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. The long-term effectiveness of FIT screening has been estimated without accounting for such systematic false-negativity. There are now data with which to evaluate this issue. METHODS: The authors developed one microsimulation model (MISCAN [MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis]-Colon) without systematic false-negative FIT results and one model that allowed a percentage of adenomas to be systematically missed in successive FIT screening rounds. Both variants were adjusted to reproduce the first-round findings of the Dutch CORERO FIT screening trial. The authors then compared simulated detection rates in the second screening round with those observed, and adjusted the simulated percentage of systematically missed adenomas to those data. Finally, the authors calculated the impact of systematic false-negative FIT results on the effectiveness of repeated FIT screening. RESULTS: The model without systematic false-negativity simulated higher detection rates in the second screening round than observed. These observed rates could be reproduced when assuming that FIT systematically missed 26% of advanced and 73% of nonadvanced adenomas. To reduce the false-positive rate in the second round to the observed level, the authors also had to assume that 30% of false-positive findings were systematically false-positive. Systematic false-negative FIT testing limits the long-term reduction of biennial FIT screening in the incidence of colorectal cancer (35.6% vs 40.9%) and its mortality (55.2% vs 59.0%) in participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study provide convincing evidence based on the combination of real-life and modeling data that a percentage of adenomas are systematically missed by repeat FIT screening. This impairs the efficacy of FIT screening. Cancer 2016;122:1680-8. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

IMPORTANCE: Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010. EXPOSURES: Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Gender Differences in Fecal Immunochemical Test Performance for Early Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used widely in colorectal cancer screening. Programs use the same fecal hemoglobin threshold for colonoscopy referral for men and women, but it is unclear whether FIT performs equally in both sexes. We therefore assessed FIT performance in men and women. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed, in which a total of 10,008 average-risk subjects (age, 50-74 y) were invited for first-round screening and 8316 average-risk subjects (age, 51-74 y) were invited for second-round screening with a single FIT. Subjects with a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 10 µg hemoglobin (Hb)/g (or ≥50 ng/mL) feces or higher were referred for colonoscopy. The test characteristics were assessed by sex for a range of FIT cut-off values. RESULTS: In total, 59.8% of men and 64.6% of women participated in the first round (P < .001). At a cut-off level of 10 µg Hb/g feces, the positivity rate was significantly higher among men (10.7%) compared with women (6.3%; P < .001) in the first round. The detection rate of advanced neoplasia was 4.4% for men and 2.2% for women (P < .001) in the first round. The positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia in the first round was 42% for men and 37% for women (P = .265). A significantly higher false-positive rate in men (6.3%) than in women (4.1%; P < .001) was found. Similar differences in these test characteristics were seen in the second round. CONCLUSIONS: At a cut-off level of 10 µg Hb/g feces the FIT positivity rate was higher in men, reflected by both a higher detection rate and a higher false-positive rate. The use of the same cut-off value in men and women in FIT screening is recommended based on equal test performance in terms of positive predictive value.