Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms.

METHODS

Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population.

LIMITATIONS

Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have shown potential to increase physical activity levels and may be cost-effective, at least in the short-term, when compared with usual care. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on their longer term costs and health benefits.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BIs to promote physical activity in primary care and to guide future research priorities using value of information analysis.

METHODS

A decision model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three classes of BIs that have been used, or could be used, to promote physical activity in primary care: 1) pedometer interventions, 2) advice/counseling on physical activity, and (3) action planning interventions. Published risk equations and data from the available literature or routine data sources were used to inform model parameters. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis was conducted to estimate the value of undertaking further research.

RESULTS

In the base-case, pedometer interventions yielded the highest expected net benefit at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was, however, a great deal of decision uncertainty: the expected value of perfect information surrounding the decision problem for the National Health Service Health Check population was estimated at £1.85 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that the use of pedometer BIs is the most cost-effective strategy to promote physical activity in primary care, and that there is potential value in further research into the cost-effectiveness of brief (i.e., <30 minutes) and very brief (i.e., <5 minutes) pedometer interventions in this setting.

Cost Effectiveness of Age-Specific Screening Intervals for People With Family Histories of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Relative risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases with age among individuals with a family history of CRC. However, no screening recommendations specify less frequent screening with increasing age. We aimed to determine whether such a refinement would be cost effective.

METHODS

We determined the relative risk for CRC for individuals based on age and number of affected first-degree relatives (FDRs) using data from publications. For each number of affected FDRs, we used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age ranges and intervals. Screening was then optimized sequentially, starting with the youngest age group, and allowing the interval of screening to change at certain ages. Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year were considered cost effective.

RESULTS

For people with 1 affected FDR (92% of those with a family history), screening every 3 years beginning at an age of 40 years is most cost effective. If no adenomas are found, the screening interval can gradually be extended to 5 and 7 years, at ages 45 and 55 years, respectively. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more affected FDRs should start screening earlier and at shorter intervals. However, frequency can be reduced if no abnormalities are found.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a microsimulation model, we found that for individuals with a family history of CRC, it is cost effective to gradually increase the screening interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of CRC are found in family members.

Surgery versus surveillance in ulcerative colitis patients with endoscopically invisible low-grade dysplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal management of endoscopically invisible (flat) low-grade dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. Such a finding does not currently provide an automatic indication for colectomy; however, a recommendation of surveillance instead of surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopic surveillance versus colectomy for endoscopically invisible low-grade dysplasia of the colon in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of surveillance and surgery over a 20-year timeframe. Outcomes evaluated were life years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cohorts of patients aged 25 to 75 were modeled, including estimates from a validated surgical risk calculator and considering none, 1, or both of 2 key comorbidities: heart failure and obstructive airway disease.

RESULTS

Surveillance is associated with more life years and QALYs compared with surgery from age 61 for those with no comorbidities, age 51 for those with 1 comorbidity and age 25 for those with 2 comorbidities. At the current United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of $25,800 per QALY, ongoing surveillance was cost-effective at age 65 in those without comorbidities and at age 60 in those with either 1 or more comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance can be recommended from age 65 for those with no comorbidities; however, in younger patients with typical postsurgical quality of life, colectomy may be more effective clinically and more cost-effective. The results were sensitive to the colorectal cancer incidence rate in patients under surveillance and to quality of life after surgery.

Colonoscopic surveillance - a cost-effective method to prevent hereditary and familial colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 20-30% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases may have a familial contribution. The family history of CRC can be prominent (e.g., hereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC)) or more moderate (e.g., familial colorectal cancer (FCRC)). For family members at risk, colonoscopic surveillance is a well-established method to prevent both HCRC and FCRC, although the evidence for the exact procedures of the surveillance is limited. Surveillance can come at a high price if individuals are frequently examined, as this may result in unnecessary colonoscopies in relation to actual risk for CRC. This study analyses the cost-effectiveness of a surveillance programme implemented in the Northern Sweden Health Care Region.

METHODS

The study includes 259 individuals prospectively recorded in the colonoscopic surveillance programme registry at the Cancer Prevention Clinic, Umeå University Hospital. We performed a cost-utility analysis with a contrafactual design: we compared observed costs and loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) due to CRC with the surveillance programme to an expected outcome without surveillance. The main measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between surveillance and non-surveillance. Scenario analysis was used to explore uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER between surveillance and non-surveillance in the base model was 3596€/QALY. The ICER varied from -4620€ in the best-case scenario to 33,779€ in the worst-case scenario.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopic surveillance is a very cost-effective method to prevent HCRC and FCRC compared to current thresholds for cost-effectiveness and other cancer preventive interventions.

Estimating utility weights and quality-adjusted life year loss for colorectal cancer-related health states in Korea

We aimed to assess utility weight of health states associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) that reflect the societal preference of the Korean population and to estimate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss with CRC. We recruited 607 individuals from the Korean population; they were surveyed via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. The participants evaluated each CRC-associated health state using standard gamble. Utility weight for each health state was calculated as the possibility of full health restoration. Moreover, we estimated total QALY loss due to CRC in Korean individuals aged ≥30 years in 2013. To calculate QALY due to morbidity, we yielded utility weights and used epidemiologic data of CRC on severity from the National Cancer Control Institute. QALY loss due to mortality was calculated using mortality of CRC and life expectancy data from the Korean Statistical Information Service. The highest and lowest utility weights were assigned to "adenomatous polyps" and "metastatic colon cancer", respectively. Total QALY loss due to CRC in Korea was 173,662; these patients were more likely to be men or be included in the 70-74-year age group. These utility weights may be useful for conducting cost-utility studies of cancer screening for CRC and for measuring disease burden with QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening can decrease morbidity and mortality. However, there are widespread differences in the implementation of programmes and choice of strategy. The primary objective of this study was to estimate lifelong costs and health outcomes of two of the currently most preferred methods of screening for colorectal cancer: colonoscopy and sensitive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in a Swedish population was performed using a decision analysis model, based on the design of the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study, and data from the published literature and registries. Lifelong cost and effects of colonoscopy once, colonoscopy every 10 years, FIT twice, FIT biennially and no screening were estimated using simulations.

RESULTS

For 1000 individuals invited to screening, it was estimated that screening once with colonoscopy yielded 49 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and a cost saving of €64 800 compared with no screening. Similarly, screening twice with FIT gave 26 more QALYs and a cost saving of €17 600. When the colonoscopic screening was repeated every tenth year, 7 additional QALYs were gained at a cost of €189 400 compared with a single colonoscopy. The additional gain with biennial FIT screening was 25 QALYs at a cost of €154 300 compared with two FITs.

CONCLUSION

All screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. Repeated and single screening strategies with colonoscopy were more cost-effective than FIT when lifelong effects and costs were considered. However, other factors such as patient acceptability of the test and availability of human resources also have to be taken into account.

Do Men and Women Need to Be Screened Differently with Fecal Immunochemical Testing? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Several studies suggest that test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) differ by gender, triggering a debate on whether men and women should be screened differently. We used the microsimulation model MISCAN-Colon to evaluate whether screening stratified by gender is cost-effective.Methods: We estimated gender-specific FIT characteristics based on first-round positivity and detection rates observed in a FIT screening pilot (CORERO-1). Subsequently, we used the model to estimate harms, benefits, and costs of 480 gender-specific FIT screening strategies and compared them with uniform screening.Results: Biennial FIT screening from ages 50 to 75 was less effective in women than men [35.7 vs. 49.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively] at higher costs (€42,161 vs. -€5,471, respectively). However, the incremental QALYs gained and costs of annual screening compared with biennial screening were more similar for both genders (8.7 QALYs gained and €26,394 for women vs. 6.7 QALYs gained and €20,863 for men). Considering all evaluated screening strategies, optimal gender-based screening yielded at most 7% more QALYs gained than optimal uniform screening and even resulted in equal costs and QALYs gained from a willingness-to-pay threshold of €1,300.Conclusions: FIT screening is less effective in women, but the incremental cost-effectiveness is similar in men and women. Consequently, screening stratified by gender is not more cost-effective than uniform FIT screening.Impact: Our conclusions support the current policy of uniform FIT screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1328-36. ©2017 AACR.

Adding bevacizumab to single agent chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A cost effectiveness analysis of the AURELIA trial

OBJECTIVE

AURELIA, a randomized phase III trial of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) in the B+CT arm compared to CT alone. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding B to CT in the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) based on the arms of the AURELIA trial. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and progression free survival (PFS) were modeled over fifteen months. Model inputs were extracted from published literature and public sources. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained and ICERs per progression free life year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The ICER associated with B+CT is $410,455 per QALY gained and $217,080 per PF-LYS. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, adding B to single agent CT is not cost effective for this patient population. Even at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, B+CT is not cost effective. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite gains in QALY and PFS, the addition of B to single agent CT for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Benefits, risks, and costs associated with treatment should be taken into consideration when prescribing chemotherapy for this patient population.

The potential impact of local excision for T1 colonic cancer in elderly and comorbid populations: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Population-based bowel cancer screening has resulted in increasing numbers of patients with T1 colonic cancer. The need for colectomy in this group is questioned due to the low risk of lymphatic spread and increased treatment morbidity, particularly for elderly, comorbid patients. This study examined the quality-of-life benefits and risks of endoscopic resection compared with results after colectomy, for low-risk and high-risk T1 colonic cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis using a Markov simulation model was performed; patients were managed with either endoscopic resection (advanced therapeutic endoscopy) or colectomy. Lesions were considered high risk according to accepted national guidelines. Probabilities and utilities (perception of quality of life) were derived from published data. Hypothetical cohorts of 65- and 80-year-old, fit and unfit patients with low-risk or high-risk T1 colonic cancer were studied. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In low-risk T1 colonic neoplasia, endoscopic resection increases QALE by 0.09 QALYS for fit 65-year-olds and by 0.67 for unfit 80-year-olds. For high-risk T1 cancers, the QALE benefit for surgical resection is 0.24 QALYs for fit 65-year-olds and the endoscopic QALE benefit is 0.47 for unfit 80-year-olds. The model findings only favored surgery with high local recurrence rates and when quality of life under surveillance was perceived poorly.

CONCLUSIONS

Under broad assumptions, endoscopic resection is a reasonable treatment option for both low-risk and high-risk T1 colonic cancer, particularly in elderly, comorbid patients. Exploration of methods to facilitate endoscopic resection of T1 colonic neoplasia appears warranted.

Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer

Cost-utility analyses undertaken to inform decision making regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) require a set of health state utility values (HSUVs) so that the time CRC patients spend in different health states can be aggregated into quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). This study reviews CRC-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation and assesses their advantages and disadvantages with respect to valuation methods used and CRC clinical pathways. Fifty-seven potentially relevant studies were identified which collectively report 321 CRC-related HSUVs. HSUVs (even for similar health states) vary markedly and this adds to the uncertainty regarding estimates of cost-effectiveness. There are relatively few methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations concerned with CRC. There is considerable scope to develop new HSUVs which improve on those currently available either by expanded collection of generic measures or by making greater use of condition-specific data, for example, using mapping algorithms.

Stool DNA Analysis is Cost-Effective for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with chronic ulcerative colitis are at increased risk for colorectal neoplasia (CRN). Surveillance by white-light endoscopy (WLE) or chromoendoscopy may reduce risk of CRN, but these strategies are underused. Analysis of DNA from stool samples (sDNA) can detect CRN with high levels of sensitivity, but it is not clear if this approach is cost-effective. We simulated these strategies for CRN detection to determine which approach is most cost-effective.

METHODS

We adapted a previously published Markov model to simulate the clinical course of chronic ulcerative colitis, the incidence of cancer or dysplasia, and costs and benefits of care with 4 surveillance strategies: (1) analysis of sDNA and diagnostic chromoendoscopy for patients with positive results, (2) analysis of sDNA with diagnostic WLE for patients with positive results, (3) chromoendoscopy with targeted collection of biopsies, or (4) WLE with random collection of biopsies. Costs were based on 2014 Medicare reimbursement. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost/incremental difference in quality-adjusted life-years) compared with no surveillance and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000.

RESULTS

All strategies fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold at 2-year intervals. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,362 per quality-adjusted life-year for sDNA analysis with diagnostic chromoendoscopy; $18,643 per quality-adjusted life-year for sDNA analysis with diagnostic WLE; $23,830 per quality-adjusted life-year for chromoendoscopy alone; and $27,907 per quality-adjusted life-year for WLE alone. In sensitivity analyses, sDNA analysis with diagnostic chromoendoscopy was more cost-effective than chromoendoscopy alone, up to a cost of $1135 per sDNA test. sDNA analysis remained cost-effective at all rates of compliance; when combined with diagnostic chromoendoscopy, this approach was preferred over chromoendoscopy alone, when the specificity of the sDNA test for CRN was >65%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a Markov model, surveillance for CRN is cost-effective for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis. Analysis of sDNA with chromoendoscopies for patients with positive results was more cost-effective than chromoendoscopy or WLE alone.

Modeling Individual Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Their Tolerance for Complications Risk

INTRODUCTION

Recommendations for colorectal cancer screening encourage patients to choose among various screening methods based on individual preferences for benefits, risks, screening frequency, and discomfort. We devised a model to illustrate how individuals with varying tolerance for screening complications risk might decide on their preferred screening strategy.

METHODS

We developed a discrete-time Markov mathematical model that allowed hypothetical individuals to maximize expected lifetime utility by selecting screening method, start age, stop age, and frequency. Individuals could choose from stool-based testing every 1 to 3 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 1 to 20 years with annual stool-based testing, colonoscopy every 1 to 20 years, or no screening. We compared the life expectancy gained from the chosen strategy with the life expectancy available from a benchmark strategy of decennial colonoscopy.

RESULTS

For an individual at average risk of colorectal cancer who was risk neutral with respect to screening complications (and therefore was willing to undergo screening if it would actuarially increase life expectancy), the model predicted that he or she would choose colonoscopy every 10 years, from age 53 to 73 years, consistent with national guidelines. For a similar individual who was moderately averse to screening complications risk (and therefore required a greater increase in life expectancy to accept potential risks of colonoscopy), the model predicted that he or she would prefer flexible sigmoidoscopy every 12 years with annual stool-based testing, with 93% of the life expectancy benefit of decennial colonoscopy. For an individual with higher risk aversion, the model predicted that he or she would prefer 2 lifetime flexible sigmoidoscopies, 20 years apart, with 70% of the life expectancy benefit of decennial colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Mathematical models may formalize how individuals with different risk attitudes choose between various guideline-recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Comparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis.

EXPOSURES

Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds.

RESULTS

The screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.

Patient preference and decision-making for initiating metastatic colorectal cancer medical treatment

PURPOSE

Some medical treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) may have marginal survival benefit, but cause toxicities. The purpose of this study is to determine metastatic CRC patients' tradeoffs in making a decision to undergo new medical treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of patients with a diagnosis of advanced CRC who were currently receiving or completed one chemotherapy regimen. First, patients were asked to rate the importance of 15 medical treatment-related adverse events that may arise as a consequence of chemotherapy or biological therapy in their treatment decision-making. Then, the patient identified his or her top five most important events and solicited preferences in hypothetical metastatic CRC treatment vignettes using the standard gamble technique.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients responded to the survey. From the list of medical treatment-related adverse events, patients identified clinically serious ones such as stroke, heart attack, and gastrointestinal perforation as the most important in their medical treatment decision-making, yet placed lower willingness to tolerate symptom-related events such as pain, fatigue, and depression. Generally, patients who were older, stage III versus IV and who had prior radiotherapy, lower educational attainment, and lower household income (all p <0.05) were less willing to tolerate any medical treatment-related adverse events after adjusting for other demographic and clinical characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in patients' willingness to tolerate different treatment-related adverse events underscore the need for improved communications between physicians and patients about the risks and benefits of their medical treatment, which helps make a more personalized decision for metastatic CRC treatment.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using a Multitarget Stool DNA Test: Modeling the Effect of the Intertest Interval on Clinical Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

A multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test was recently approved for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for men and women, aged ≥ 50 years, at average risk of CRC. The guidelines currently recommend a 3-year interval for mt-sDNA testing in the absence of empirical data. We used clinical effectiveness modeling to project decreases in CRC incidence and related mortality associated with mt-sDNA screening to help inform interval setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Archimedes model (Archimedes Inc., San Francisco, CA) was used to conduct a 5-arm, virtual, clinical screening study of a population of 200,000 virtual individuals to compare the clinical effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals compared with colonoscopy at 10-year intervals and no screening for a 30-year period. The study endpoints were the decrease in CRC incidence and related mortality of each strategy versus no screening. Cost-effectiveness ratios (US dollars per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of mt-sDNA intervals were calculated versus no screening.

RESULTS

Compared with 10-year colonoscopy, annual mt-sDNA testing produced similar reductions in CRC incidence (65% vs. 63%) and related mortality (73% vs. 72%). mt-sDNA testing at 3-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 57% and CRC mortality by 67%, and mt-sDNA testing at 5-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 52% and CRC mortality by 62%. At an average price of $600 per test, the annual, 3-year, and 5-year mt-sDNA screening costs would be $20,178, $11,313, and $7388 per QALY, respectively, compared with no screening.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that screening every 3 years using a multitarget mt-sDNA test provides reasonable performance at acceptable cost.

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors.

METHODS

We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.

Cost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies from the healthcare service provider perspective based on Chinese population.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of recommended screening strategies including annual/biennial guaiac fecal occult blood testing (G-FOBT), annual/biennial immunologic FOBT (I-FOBT), and colonoscopy every 10 years in Chinese aged 50 year over a 25-year period. External validity of model was tested against data retrieved from published randomized controlled trials of G-FOBT. Recourse use data collected from Chinese subjects among staging of colorectal neoplasm were combined with published unit cost data ($USD in 2009 price values) to estimate a stage-specific cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were quantified based on the stage duration and SF-6D preference-based value of each stage. The cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented by costs per life-years (LY) and costs per QALYs gained.

Results

In base-case scenario, the non-dominated strategies were annual and biennial I-FOBT. Compared with no screening, the ICER presented $20,542/LYs and $3155/QALYs gained for annual I-FOBT, and $19,838/LYs gained and $2976/QALYs gained for biennial I-FOBT. The optimal screening strategy was annual I-FOBT that attained the highest ICER at the threshold of $50,000 per LYs or QALYs gained.

Conclusion

The Markov model informed the health policymakers that I-FOBT every year may be the most effective and cost-effective CRC screening strategy among recommended screening strategies, depending on the willingness-to-pay of mass screening for Chinese population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02038283

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1730-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify LS in newly diagnosed early-onset CRC patients (aged < 50 years). Cascade testing of relatives is employed in all strategies for individuals in whom LS is identified.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted of the test accuracy of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or immunohistochemistry (IHC) in individuals with CRC at risk of LS, and of economic evidence relating to diagnostic strategies for LS. Reviews were carried out in April 2012 (test accuracy); and in February 2012, repeated in February 2013 (economic evaluations). Databases searched included MEDLINE (1946 to April week 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to week 17, 2012) and Web of Science (inception to 30 April 2012), and risk of bias for test accuracy was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) quality appraisal tool. A de novo economic model of diagnostic strategies for LS was developed.

RESULTS

Inconsistencies in study designs precluded pooling of diagnostic test accuracy results from a previous systematic review and nine subsequent primary studies. These were of mixed quality, with significant methodological concerns identified for most. IHC and MSI can both play a part in diagnosing LS but neither is gold standard. No UK studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and managing LS, although studies from other countries generally found some strategies to be cost-effective compared with no testing. The de novo model demonstrated that all strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with the most cost-effective strategy utilising MSI and BRAF testing [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = £5491 per QALY]. The maximum health benefit to the population of interest would be obtained using universal germline testing, but this would not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with the next best strategy. When the age limit was raised from 50 to 60 and 70 years, the ICERs compared with no testing increased but remained below £20,000 per QALY (except for universal germline testing with an age limit of 70 years). The total net health benefit increased with the age limit as more individuals with LS were identified. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate sensitivity analyses, which suggested that the parameters substantially affecting cost-effectiveness: were the risk of CRC for individuals with LS; the average number of relatives identified per index patient; the effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing metachronous CRC; the cost of colonoscopy; the duration of the psychological impact of genetic testing on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and the impact of prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on HRQoL (this had the potential to make all testing strategies more expensive and less effective than no testing).

LIMITATIONS

The absence of high-quality data for the impact of prophylactic gynaecological surgery and the psychological impact of genetic testing on HRQoL is an acknowledged limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that reflex testing for LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 50 years is cost-effective. Such testing may also be cost-effective in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 60 or < 70 years. Results are subject to uncertainty due to a number of parameters, for some of which good estimates were not identified. We recommend future research to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed endometrial or ovarian cancer, and the inclusion of aspirin chemoprevention. Further research is required to accurately estimate the impact of interventions on HRQoL.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002436.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a colonoscopy screening navigator program designed for Hispanic men

Although Hispanic men are at higher risk of developing colon cancer compared to non-Hispanic white men, colonoscopy screening among Hispanic men is much lower than among non-Hispanic white men. University Health System (UHS) in San Antonio, Texas, instituted a Colorectal Cancer Male Navigation (CCMN) Program in 2011 specifically designed for Hispanic men. The CCMN Program contacted 461 Hispanic men 50 years of age and older to participate over a 2-year period. Of these age-eligible men, 370 were screened for CRC after being contacted by the navigator. Using participant and program data, a Markov model was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the CCMN Program. An average 50-year-old Hispanic male who participates in the CCMN Program will have 0.3 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to a similar male receiving usual care. Life expectancy is also predicted to increase by 6 months for participants compared to non-participants. The program results in net health care savings of $1,148 per participant ($424,760 for the 370 CCMN Program participants). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is estimated at $3,765 per QALY in favor of the navigation program. Interventions to reduce disparities in CRC screening across ethnic groups are needed, and this is one of the first studies to evaluate the economic benefit of a patient navigator program specifically designed for an urban population of Hispanic men. A colorectal cancer screening intervention which relies on patient navigators trained to address the unique needs of the targeted population (language barriers, transportation and scheduling assistance, colon cancer, and screening knowledge) can substantially increase the likelihood of screening and improve quality of life in a cost-effective manner.

Colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis: an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of annual colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether annual colonoscopy among patients with IBD-PSC is cost-effective compared with less frequent intervals from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was used to simulate a 35-year-old patient with a 10-year history of well-controlled IBD and a recent diagnosis of concomitant PSC. The following strategies were compared: no surveillance, colonoscopy every 5 years, biennial colonoscopy, and annual colonoscopy. Outcome measures included: costs, number of cases of dysplasia found, number of cancers found and missed, deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, no surveillance was the least expensive and least effective strategy. Compared with no surveillance, the cost per QALY of surveillance every 5 years was CAD $15,021. The cost per QALY of biennial surveillance compared with surveillance every 5 years was CAD $37,522. Annual surveillance was more effective than biennial surveillance, but at an incremental cost of CAD $174,650 per QALY gained compared with biennial surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

More frequent colonoscopy screening intervals improve effectiveness (i.e., detects more cancers and prevents additional deaths), but at higher cost. Health systems must consider the opportunity costs associated with different surveillance colonoscopy intervals when deciding which strategy to implement among patients with IBD-PSC.

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study

IMPORTANCE

Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency).

RESULTS

Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of utility weights for colorectal cancer (CRC) health states reported in the scientific literature and to determine the effects of disease factors, patient characteristics, and utility methods on utility values.

METHODS

We identified 26 articles written in English and published from January 1980 to January 2013, providing 351 unique utilities for CRC health states elicited from 6546 unique respondents. The CRC utility data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with CRC type, stage, time to or from initial care, utility measurement instrument, and administration method as independent variables.

RESULTS

In the base case model, the estimated utility for a patient with stage I to III CRC more than 1 year after surgery, rated using a self-administered time tradeoff instrument, was 0.90. Stage, time to or from initial care, and utility measurement instrument were associated with statistically significant utility differences ranging from -0.19 to 0.02. Utilities for patients with stage IV cancer were 0.19 lower (P < 0.001) than for those with stage I to III cancer. Utilities elicited at more than 1 year after surgery were 0.05 higher than those elicited at 3 months after surgery (P = 0.008). Estimates of differences between utility measurement instruments were sensitive to how repeated scores in the same patient group were treated, and other findings were sensitive to how the disease stage was modeled and method of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in reported utilities are associated with factors such as cancer stage, time to or from initial care, and utility measurement instrument. More research is needed to study why apparently similar patients report different quality of life.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromoendoscopy for colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies report that the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) may be lower than previously estimated. Although white-light endoscopy (WLE) with random biopsies is recommended for dysplasia detection in patients with UC, several studies reported increased detection of dysplasia by chromoendoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the cost effectiveness of chromoendoscopy relative to WLE or no endoscopy for CRC surveillance in patients with UC.

DESIGN

Decision-analytic state-transition (Markov) model with Monte Carlo simulation.

SETTING

To simulate the clinical course of chronic UC, we estimated dysplasia and CRC incidence and progression, endoscopic test characteristics, stage-specific mortality rates, and costs from published literature and Medicare reimbursement data.

PATIENTS

Patients from a population-based age distribution with ulcerative colitis for ≥8 years.

INTERVENTION

We compared 3 different strategies at various surveillance intervals: chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies, WLE with random biopsies, and no surveillance. The robustness of the model was assessed by using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate individual variables, and 3-dimensional analysis was used to examine the effects of varying screening intervals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Chromoendoscopy was found to be more effective and less costly than WLE at all surveillance intervals. However, compared with no surveillance, chromoendoscopy was cost effective only at surveillance intervals of at least 7 years, with an ICER of $77,176. Chromoendoscopy was the most cost effective strategy at sensitivity levels >0.23 for dysplasia detection and cost <$2200, regardless of the level of sensitivity of WLE for dysplasia detection. The estimated population lifetime risk of developing CRC ranged from 2.5% (annual chromoendoscopy) to 5.9% (chromoendoscopy every 10 years).

LIMITATIONS

Estimates used for the model are based on best available data in the literature.

CONCLUSION

Chromoendoscopy is both more effective and less costly than WLE and becomes cost effective relative to no surveillance when performed at intervals of ≥7 years.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Stage III Colon Cancer Treatment at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost effectiveness of adjuvant stage III colon cancer chemotherapy regimens, given that previous analyses have been based on data from clinical trials. The study was designed using integrated decision tree and Markov model, which was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and the combination of each with oxaliplatin. The analysis was performed from a US Veterans Affairs perspective via retrospectively collected data, over a 5-year model time horizon. Outcome and cost data were used to calculate cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case analysis, capecitabine and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin both cost more and were less effective than other regimens, and 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin, compared to 5-FU/LV alone, resulted in a cost of $25,997 per QALY gained. Model results were generally robust to parameter variation. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin could be economically reasonable if full dosing occurred ≥76% of the time (base case 42%). In a real-world setting, the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV is more effective but also more costly than 5-FU/LV alone. If full dosing of capecitabine-containing regimens can be assured, they may also be cost-effective strategies.

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend screening schedules for each single type of test except for concurrent sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT). We investigated the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy that was based on a fecal immunological test (FIT) and colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis by using the Archimedes Model to evaluate the effects of different CRC screening strategies on health outcomes and costs related to CRC in a population that represents members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The Archimedes Model is a large-scale simulation of human physiology, diseases, interventions, and health care systems. The CRC submodel in the Archimedes Model was derived from public databases, published epidemiologic studies, and clinical trials.

RESULTS

A hybrid screening strategy led to substantial reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and reductions in costs, comparable with those of the best single-test strategies. Screening by annual FIT of patients 50-65 years old and then a single colonoscopy when they were 66 years old (FIT/COLOx1) reduced CRC incidence by 72% and gained 110 QALYs for every 1000 people during a period of 30 years, compared with no screening. Compared with annual FIT, FIT/COLOx1 gained 1400 QALYs/100,000 persons at an incremental cost of $9700/QALY gained and required 55% fewer FITs. Compared with FIT/COLOx1, colonoscopy at 10-year intervals gained 500 QALYs/100,000 at an incremental cost of $35,100/QALY gained but required 37% more colonoscopies. Over the ranges of parameters examined, the cost-effectiveness of hybrid screening strategies was slightly more sensitive to the adherence rate with colonoscopy than the adherence rate with yearly FIT. Uncertainties associated with estimates of FIT performance within a program setting and sensitivities for flat and right-sided lesions are expected to have significant impacts on the cost-effectiveness results.

CONCLUSIONS

In our simulation model, a strategy of annual or biennial FIT, beginning when patients are 50 years old, with a single colonoscopy when they are 66 years old, delivers clinical and economic outcomes similar to those of CRC screening by single-modality strategies, with a favorable impact on resources demand.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in stage III colon cancer: a synthesis of clinical trial and daily practice evidence

OBJECTIVES

Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of oxaliplatin have been based on randomised trials whereas current Dutch policy requires evidence from daily practice. The objective of this study was to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines (FL) versus FL-only as adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years from a hospital perspective. The effectiveness of the oxaliplatin arm was modelled by combining published efficacy data from the pivotal clinical registration trial (MOSAIC trial) with real-world (RW) data from a Dutch population-based observational study. RW patients were categorised into "eligible" or "ineligible", depending on whether the patients fulfilled the MOSAIC trial eligibility criteria. Ineligible RW patients (18 %) had a poorer prognosis than eligible RW patients (82 %) and MOSAIC trial patients. The effectiveness of the comparator was modelled using MOSAIC trial results. All cost inputs were based on RW patients and reported in Euro 2012. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for four different scenarios: (1) cost-effectiveness analyses based on MOSAIC trial patients; (2) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and eligible RW patients; (3) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and both eligible and ineligible RW patients, assuming oxaliplatin had an equal effect in ineligible and eligible patients; (4) cost-effectiveness analyses using MOSAIC and both eligible and ineligible RW patients, assuming oxaliplatin had no effect amongst ineligibles. For each scenario, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

MOSAIC trial patients and eligible RW patients treated with oxaliplatin had comparable 2-year disease-free survivals (79.5 vs. 78.4 %). Oxaliplatin showed an incremental QALY gain of 1.02, 1.13, 1.17 and 0.93 and incremental cost of <euro>9,961, <euro>11,055, <euro>9,814 and <euro>11,854 in scenarios 1-4, respectively. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were <euro>9,766, <euro>9,783, <euro>8,388 and <euro>12,746 in scenarios 1-4, respectively. In all scenarios, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICERs are acceptable and robust under a wide range of model assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICERs of the different scenarios that resulted from combining MOSAIC trial data with data from Dutch daily practice all suggest that FL + oxaliplatin is cost-effective versus FL alone in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. This article illustrates how one could design and implement a real-world cost-effectiveness study to yield internally valid results that could also be generalisable.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 3-D computerized tomography colonography versus optical colonoscopy for imaging symptomatic gastroenterology patients

BACKGROUND

When symptomatic gastroenterology patients have an indication for colonic imaging, clinicians have a choice between optical colonoscopy (OC) and computerized tomography colonography with three-dimensional reconstruction (3-D CTC). 3-D CTC provides a minimally invasive and rapid evaluation of the entire colon, and it can be an efficient modality for diagnosing symptoms. It allows for a more targeted use of OC, which is associated with a higher risk of major adverse events and higher procedural costs. A case can be made for 3-D CTC as a primary test for colonic imaging followed if necessary by targeted therapeutic OC; however, the relative long-term costs and benefits of introducing 3-D CTC as a first-line investigation are unknown.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of 3-D CTC versus OC for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients in the UK NHS.

METHODS

We used a Markov model to follow a cohort of 100,000 symptomatic gastroenterology patients, aged 50 years or older, and estimate the expected lifetime outcomes, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (£, 2010-2011) associated with 3-D CTC and OC. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the base-case cost-effectiveness results to variation in input parameters and methodological assumptions.

RESULTS

3D-CTC provided a similar number of LYs (7.737 vs 7.739) and QALYs (7.013 vs 7.018) per individual compared with OC, and it was associated with substantially lower mean costs per patient (£467 vs £583), leading to a positive incremental net benefit. After accounting for the overall uncertainty, the probability of 3-D CTC being cost effective was around 60 %, at typical willingness-to-pay values of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

3-D CTC is a cost-saving and cost-effective option for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients compared with OC.

A systematic review of utility values for chemotherapy-related adverse events

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy offers cancer patients the potential benefits of improved mortality and morbidity but may cause detrimental outcomes due to adverse drug events (ADEs), some of which requiring time-consuming, resource-intensive and costly clinical management. To appropriately assess chemotherapy agents in an economic evaluation, ADE-related parameters such as the incidence, (dis)utility and cost of ADEs should be reflected within the model parameters. To date, there has been no systematic summary of the existing literature that quantifies the utilities of ADEs due to healthcare interventions in general and chemotherapy treatments in particular.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.

METHODS

A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.

LIMITATIONS

This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.

A multigene prognostic assay for selection of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T3, stage II colon cancer: impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy and costs

OBJECTIVES

Uncertainty exists regarding appropriate and affordable use of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair). This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness and costs from a US societal perspective of a multigene recurrence score (RS) assay for patients recently diagnosed with stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair) eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

RS was compared with guideline-recommended clinicopathological factors (tumor stage, lymph nodes examined, tumor grade, and lymphovascular invasion) by using a state-transition (Markov) lifetime model. Data were obtained from published literature, a randomized controlled trial (QUick And Simple And Reliable) of adjuvant chemotherapy, and rates of chemotherapy use from the National Cooperative Cancer Network Colon/Rectum Cancer Outcomes study. Life-years, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime costs were examined.

RESULTS

The RS is projected to reduce adjuvant chemotherapy use by 17% compared with current treatment patterns and to increase quality-adjusted life expectancy by an average of 0.035 years. Direct medical costs are expected to decrease by an average of $2971 per patient. The assay was cost saving for all subgroups of patients stratified by clinicopathologic factors. The most influential variables affecting treatment decisions were projected years of life remaining, recurrence score, and patients' disutilities associated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the multigene RS to assess recurrence risk after surgery in stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair) may reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without decreasing quality-adjusted life expectancy and be cost saving from a societal perspective. These findings need to be validated in additional cohorts, including studies of clinical practice as assay use diffuses into nonacademic settings.

Quality of life valuations of HPV-associated cancer health states by the general population

OBJECTIVES

To obtain health-related quality of life valuations (ie, utilities) for human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancer health states of vulval, vaginal, penile, anal and oropharyngeal cancers for use in modelling cost-effectiveness of prophylactic HPV vaccination.

METHODS

Written case descriptions of each HPV-associated cancer describing the 'average' patient surviving after the initial cancer diagnosis and treatment were developed in consultation with oncology clinicians. A general overview, standard gamble questionnaire for each health state and a quiz was conducted in 120 participants recruited from the general population.

RESULTS

In the included population sample (n=99), the average age was 43 years (range = 18-70 years) with 54% men, 44% never married/43% married, 76% education beyond year 12 and 39% employed full-time. The utility values for the five health states were 0.57 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.62) for anal cancer, 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63) for oropharyngeal cancer, 0.59 (0.54 to 0.64) for vaginal cancer, 0.65 (0.60 to 0.70) for vulval cancer and 0.79 (0.74 to 0.84) for penile cancer. Participants demonstrated a very good understanding of the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of these cancers with a mean score of 9 (SD=1.1) on a 10-item quiz.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides utility estimates for the specific HPV-related cancers of vulval, vaginal, penile, anal and oropharyngeal cancers valued by a general population sample using standard gamble. The results demonstrate considerable quality of life impact associated with surviving these cancers that will be important to incorporate into modelling cost-effectiveness of prophylactic HPV vaccination in different populations.

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The European Code Against Cancer recommends individuals aged ≥ 50 should participate in colorectal cancer screening. CT-colonography (CTC) is one of several screening tests available. We systematically reviewed evidence on, and identified key factors influencing, cost-effectiveness of CTC screening.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library were searched for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of CTC-based screening, published in English, January 1999 to July 2010. Data was abstracted on setting, model type and horizon, screening scenario(s), comparator(s), participants, uptake, CTC performance and cost, effectiveness, ICERs, and whether extra-colonic findings and medical complications were considered.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified from the United States (n = 11), Canada (n = 2), and France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (1 each). Markov state-transition (n = 14) or microsimulation (n = 2) models were used. Eleven considered direct medical costs only; five included indirect costs. Fourteen compared CTC with no screening; fourteen compared CTC with colonoscopy-based screening; fewer compared CTC with sigmoidoscopy (8) or fecal tests (4). Outcomes assessed were life-years gained/saved (13), QALYs (2), or both (1). Three considered extra-colonic findings; seven considered complications. CTC appeared cost-effective versus no screening and, in general, flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. Results were mixed comparing CTC to colonoscopy. Parameters most influencing cost-effectiveness included: CTC costs, screening uptake, threshold for polyp referral, and extra-colonic findings.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is heterogeneous, due largely to between-study differences in comparators and parameter values. Future studies should: compare CTC with currently favored tests, especially fecal immunochemical tests; consider extra-colonic findings; and conduct comprehensive sensitivity analyses.

Impact of comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness study in diabetic populations

BACKGROUND

Although comorbidity has been shown to affect the benefits and risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, it has not been accounted for in prior cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, a highly prevalent comorbidity in U.S. adults aged 50 and older, on health and economic outcomes of CRC screening.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using an integrated modeling framework.

DATA SOURCES

Derived from basic and epidemiologic studies, clinical trials, cancer registries, and a colonoscopy database.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. 50-year-old population.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Costs are based on Medicare reimbursement rates.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy screening at ten-year intervals, beginning at age 50, and discontinued after age 50, 60, 70, 80 or death.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Health outcomes and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Diabetes diagnosis significantly affects cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. For the same CRC screening strategy, a person without diabetes at age 50 gained on average 0.07-0.13 life years more than a person diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger. For a population of 1,000 patients diagnosed with diabetes at baseline, increasing stop age from 70 years to 80 years increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by 0.3, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $206,671/QALY. The corresponding figures for 1,000 patients without diabetes are 2.3 QALYs and $46,957/QALY.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to cost of colonoscopy and adherence to colonoscopy screening.

LIMITATIONS

Results depend on accuracy of model assumptions.

CONCLUSION

Benefits of CRC screening differ substantially for patients with and without diabetes. Screening for CRC in patients diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger is not cost-effective beyond age 70. Screening recommendations should be individualized based on the presence of comorbidities.

How do people with chronic kidney disease value cancer-related quality of life?

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the utility-based quality of life (QOL) of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to estimate the QOL associated with two hypothetical colorectal cancer health states.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in people with CKD (stages 3-5, transplant recipients and those on dialysis) from three centres in Sydney, Australia. We measured participants' own QOL and that of two hypothetical colorectal cancer health states using a rating scale, and a utility-based QOL measure, the time trade-off, with extremes of 0 (death) and 1 (full health).

RESULTS

Recipients of kidney transplants (n=79) had the highest mean QOL weights of 0.79 (standard deviation (SD)=0.34) compared with participants with CKD 3-5 (n=53) with mean QOL weights of 0.70 (SD=0.39), and those on dialysis (n=89), who had the lowest mean QOL weights of 0.62 (SD=0.41) (P=0.02). Having early and advanced stage colorectal cancers were valued at mean QOL weights of 0.44 (SD=0.41) and 0.12 (SD=0.25) among people with moderate stage CKD; 0.45 (SD=0.39) and 0.11 (SD=0.24) among dialysis patients; 0.62 (SD=0.36) and 0.18 (SD=0.29) among kidney transplant recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

People with CKD have poor QOL. Having coexistent illnesses such as cancer further reduces the overall well-being of individuals with kidney disease. In addition to the development of effective screening and treatment programs to improve cancer outcomes in people with CKD, our study also highlights the need for effective interventions to improve the QOL in people with CKD, particularly those with major comorbidities like cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment, percutaneous biopsy and active surveillance for the diagnosis of the small solid renal mass: evidence from a Markov model

PURPOSE

The most effective diagnostic strategy for the very small, incidentally detected solid renal mass is uncertain. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding percutaneous biopsy or active surveillance to the diagnosis of a 2 cm or less solid renal mass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov state transition model was developed to observe a hypothetical cohort of healthy 60-year-old men with an incidentally detected, 2 or less cm solid renal mass, comparing percutaneous biopsy, immediate treatment and active surveillance. The primary outcomes assessed were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio measured by cost per life-year gained at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Model results were assessed by sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Immediate treatment was the highest cost, most effective diagnostic strategy, providing the longest overall survival of 18.53 life-years. Active surveillance was the lowest cost, least effective diagnostic strategy. On cost-effectiveness analysis using a societal willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 active surveillance was the preferred choice at a $75,000 willingness to pay threshold while biopsy and treatment were acceptable ($56,644 and $70,149 per life-year, respectively). When analysis was adjusted for quality of life, biopsy dominated immediate treatment as the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy at $33,840 per quality adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous biopsy may have a greater role in optimizing the diagnosis of an incidentally detected, 2 cm or less solid renal mass.

Fecal occult blood testing when colonoscopy capacity is limited

BACKGROUND

Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) can be adapted to a limited colonoscopy capacity by narrowing the age range or extending the screening interval, by using a more specific test or hemoglobin cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy, and by restricting surveillance colonoscopy. Which of these options is most clinically effective and cost-effective has yet to be established.

METHODS

We used the validated MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the number of colonoscopies, costs, and health effects of different screening strategies using guaiac FOBT or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at various hemoglobin cutoff levels between 50 and 200 ng hemoglobin per mL, different surveillance strategies, and various age ranges. We optimized the allocation of a limited number of colonoscopies on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

When colonoscopy capacity was unlimited, the optimal screening strategy was to administer an annual FIT with a 50 ng/mL hemoglobin cutoff level in individuals aged 45-80 years and to offer colonoscopy surveillance to all individuals with adenomas. When colonoscopy capacity was decreasing, the optimal screening adaptation was to first increase the FIT hemoglobin cutoff value to 200 ng hemoglobin per mL and narrow the age range to 50-75 years, to restrict colonoscopy surveillance, and finally to further decrease the number of screening rounds. FIT screening was always more cost-effective compared with guaiac FOBT. Doubling colonoscopy capacity increased the benefits of FIT screening up to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT should be used at higher hemoglobin cutoff levels when colonoscopy capacity is limited compared with unlimited and is more effective in terms of health outcomes and cost compared with guaiac FOBT at all colonoscopy capacity levels. Increasing the colonoscopy capacity substantially increases the health benefits of FIT screening.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quantitative immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Two European randomized trials (N = 30,000) compared guaiac fecal occult blood testing with quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and showed better attendance rates and test characteristics for FIT. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective FIT cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy based on data from these trials and allowing for differences in screening ages.

METHODS

We used the validated MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Colon microsimulation model to estimate costs and effects of different screening strategies for FIT cutoff levels of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL hemoglobin. For each cutoff level, screening strategies were assessed with various age ranges and screening intervals. We assumed sufficient colonoscopy capacity for all strategies.

RESULTS

At all cost levels, FIT screening was most effective with the 50 ng/mL cutoff level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biennial screening between ages 55 and 75 years using FIT at 50 ng/mL, for example, was 3900 euro per life year gained. Annual screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,900 euro per life year gained, in combination with a wider age range (between ages 45 and 80 years). In the sensitivity analysis, 50 ng/mL remained the preferred cutoff level.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT screening is more cost-effective at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL than at higher cutoff levels. This supports the recommendation to use FIT at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL, which is considerably lower than the values used in current practice.

Comparative and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone among US elderly stage IV colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have shown a statistically significant disease-free survival benefit of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens for stage IV colon cancer. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these agents among elderly patients. Whether the benefits of these agents justify the additional costs for elderly Medicare recipients is particularly policy relevant after US health care reform.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone in elderly stage IV colon cancer patients was performed from a US Medicare perspective. Survival and direct medical costs were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data sets for patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2005 with follow-up through 2007. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as costs per life-year gained, with sensitivity analysis estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

Median improved overall survival with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone, or irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy was 0.99, 1.07, and 1.47 life-years, respectively. Costs per life-year gained for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone were $78,181 and $267,938, respectively. ICERs comparing oxaliplatin-based to irinotecan-based regimens were $40,230 per life-year gained or $160,920 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy improves overall survival but also substantially increases direct medical costs compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone when used in elderly US patients with stage IV colon cancer. Oxaliplatin-based regimens are more cost-effective than irinotecan-based regimens for treatment of elderly stage IV colon cancer patients in terms of cost per life-year gained, but not in terms of cost per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in Canada

Objective

The cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5fu/lv)—the folfox regimen—was compared with that of 5fu/lv alone as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage iii colon cancer, from the perspective of the Cancer Care Ontario New Drug Funding Program. In the mosaic (Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer) trial, the folfox regimen significantly improved disease-free survival. The mosaic trial formed the basis of the present analysis.

Methodology

Extrapolated patient-level data from the mosaic trial were used to model patient outcomes from treatment until death. Utilities were obtained from the literature. Resource utilization data were derived from the mosaic trial and supplemented with data from the literature. Unit costs were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the London Health Sciences Centre, and the literature.

Results

Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for folfox compared with 5fu/lv were CA$14,266 per disease-free year, CA$23,598 per life-year saved, and CA$24,104 per quality adjusted life-year (qaly) gained, discounting costs and outcomes at 5% per annum. These results were stable for a wide range of inputs; only utility values associated with relapse seemed to influence the cost-effectiveness ratios observed.

Conclusions

With an incremental cost of CA$24,104 per qaly gained, folfox is a cost-effective adjuvant treatment for stage iii colon cancer. Compared with 5fu/lv alone, this regimen offers better clinical outcomes and provides good value for money.