Where does it FIT? The roles of fecal testing and colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential two-step screening versus direct colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a large-scale survey in Eastern China

Objectives

Despite the implementation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs in many regions worldwide over the past few decades, the cost-effectiveness of these programs has been questioned owing to their acceptance rates. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies, quantified the impact of colonoscopy acceptance rates, and analyzed the underlying factors driving individual preferences.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of three strategies-no screening, sequential two-step screening (fecal immunochemical test and risk assessment, followed by colonoscopy), and colonoscopy screening-was evaluated from a societal perspective. This assessment was conducted using a decision-tree Markov model with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the primary evaluation criterion.

Results

Sequential screening was more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening (19,335 vs. 27,379 United States dollars per quality-adjusted life year). Ideal sequential screening could prevent 32.2%(691/2147) CRC deaths, whereas colonoscopy screening at the same colonoscopy acceptance rate (20.3%) could prevent 17.6%(377/2147) CRC deaths. When the acceptance rate of direct colonoscopy surpasses the threshold of 37.2%, the resulting health benefits likely outweigh those achieved using a the sequential two-step screening approach.

Conclusions

Sequential screening is recommended for individuals in areas with constrained screening resources or during the early stages of regional screening program implementation. However, once screening habits are established, transitioning to direct colonoscopy screening becomes more favorable. Notably, reducing colonoscopy costs is the principal factor for enhancing an individual's willingness to undergo the procedure.

Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

For some patients, positive cancer screening test results can be a stressful experience that can affect future screening compliance and increase the use of health care services unrelated to medically indicated follow-up.

METHODS

Among 483,216 individuals aged 50 to 75 years who completed a fecal immunochemical test to screen for colorectal cancer at a large integrated health care setting between 2007 and 2011, the authors evaluated whether a positive test was associated with a net change in outpatient primary care visit use within the year after screening. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between test result group and net changes in primary care visits after fecal immunochemical testing.

RESULTS

In the year after the fecal immunochemical test, use increased by 0.60 clinic visits for patients with true-positive results. The absolute change in visits was largest (3.00) among individuals with positive test results who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but significant small increases also were found for patients treated with polypectomy and who had no neoplasia (0.36) and those with a normal examination and no polypectomy performed (0.17). Groups of patients who demonstrated an increase in net visit use compared with the true-negative group included patients with true-positive results (odds ratio [OR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.54-1.66), and positive groups with a colorectal cancer diagnosis (OR, 7.19; 95% CI, 6.12-8.44), polypectomy/no neoplasia (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.48), and normal examination/no polypectomy (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the large size of outreach programs, these small changes can cumulatively generate thousands of excess visits and have a substantial impact on total health care use. Therefore, these changes should be included in colorectal cancer screening cost models and their causes investigated further. Cancer 2017;123:3744-3753. © 2017 American Cancer Society.