Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:415-423. [PMID: 23006522 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462312000542]

Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, being the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Despite the progress in screening, early diagnosis, and treatment, approximately 20%-25% of CRC patients still present with metastatic disease at the time of their initial diagnosis. Furthermore, the burden of disease is still expected to increase, especially in individuals younger than 50 years old, among whom early-onset CRC incidence has been increasing. Screening and early detection are pivotal to improve CRC-related outcomes. It is well established that CRC screening not only reduces incidence, but also decreases deaths from CRC. Diverse screening strategies have proven effective in decreasing both CRC incidence and mortality, though variations in efficacy have been reported across the literature. However, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal screening method, age intervals and periodicity. Moreover, adherence to CRC screening remains globally low. In recent years, emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence, and non-invasive biomarkers, have been developed to overcome these barriers. However, controversy exists over the actual impact of some of the new discoveries on CRC-related outcomes and how to effectively integrate them into daily practice. In this review, we aim to cover the current evidence surrounding CRC screening. We will further critically assess novel approaches under investigation, in an effort to differentiate promising innovations from mere novelties.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death worldwide and the use of CRC screening tests can reduce the incidence and mortality of the disease by early detection. This study aims to review cost-effectiveness strategies in different ages and countries, systematically.

METHODS

We searched ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase for related studies between 2010 and 2020. Articles that reported costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Year or Life Year Gain and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios to compare the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in the average-risk population were included in our study.

RESULTS

The search strategies identified 426 records and finally 48 articles were included in the systematic review based on included and excluded criteria. We identified seven strategies for CRC screening. Most of the strategies were performed in aged 50-75. These studies were reported by cost per Quality-Adjusted life year (QALY)/Life Year Gain (LYG) based on methods and perspectives and the ICER of comparison of two-by-two strategies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the CRC screening strategies were cost-effective, but there was big heterogeneity between the cost-effectiveness analysis of CRC screening strategies because of different screening methods, perspectives and screening populations. So, it is important to consider this heterogeneity to compare the economic evaluation studies in this field.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Colorectal carcinoma screening: Established methods and emerging technology

Colorectal carcinoma screening programs have shown success in lowering both the incidence and mortality rate of colorectal carcinoma at a population level, in part because this carcinoma is relatively slow growing and has an identifiable premalignant lesion. Still, many patients do not undergo the recommended screening for colorectal carcinoma, and of those who do, a subset may be over- or under-diagnosed by the currently available testing methods. The primary purpose of this article is to review the data regarding currently available colorectal cancer screening modalities, which include fecal occult blood testing, direct colonic visualization, and noninvasive imaging techniques. In addition, readers will be introduced to a variety of biomarkers that may serve as stand-alone or adjunct tests in the future. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the current epidemiologic considerations that public health officials must address as they create population screening guidelines. The data we provide as laboratory physicians and scientists are critical to the construction of appropriate recommendations that ultimately decrease the burden of disease from colorectal carcinoma.

Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality can be significantly reduced by population screening. Several different screening methods are currently in use, and this review focuses specifically on the imaging technique computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The challenges and logistics of CTC screening, as well as the importance of test accuracy, uptake, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness will be discussed. With comparable advanced adenoma detection rates to colonoscopy (the most commonly used whole-colon investigation), CTC is a less-invasive alternative, requiring less laxative, and with the potential benefit that it permits assessment of extra colonic structures. Three large-scale European trials have contributed valuable evidence supporting the use of CTC in population screening, and highlight the importance of selecting appropriate clinical management pathways based on initial CTC findings. Future research into CTC-screening will likely focus on radiologist training and CTC quality assurance, with identification of evidence-based key performance indicators that are associated with clinically-relevant outcomes such as the incidence of post-test interval cancers (CRC occurring after a presumed negative CTC). In comparison to other CRC screening techniques, CTC offers a safe and accurate option that is particularly useful when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses which evaluate referral thresholds, the impact of extra-colonic findings and real-world uptake will provide useful information regarding the feasibility of future CTC population screening.

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy

OBJECTIVE

Unit costs of screening CT colonography (CTC) can be useful for cost-effectiveness analyses and for health care decision-making. We evaluated the unit costs of CTC as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in the setting of a randomized trial in Italy.

METHODS

Data were collected within the randomized SAVE trial. Subjects were invited to screening CTC by mail and requested to have a pre-examination consultation. CTCs were performed with 64- and 128-slice CT scanners after reduced or full bowel preparation. Activity-based costing was used to determine unit costs per-process, per-participant to screening CTC, and per-subject with advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

Among 5242 subjects invited to undergo screening CTC, 1312 had pre-examination consultation and 1286 ultimately underwent CTC. Among 129 subjects with a positive CTC, 126 underwent assessment colonoscopy and 67 were ultimately diagnosed with advanced neoplasia (i.e., cancer or advanced adenoma). Cost per-participant of the entire screening CTC pathway was €196.80. Average cost per-participant for the screening invitation process was €17.04 and €9.45 for the pre-examination consultation process. Average cost per-participant of the CTC execution and reading process was €146.08 and of the diagnostic assessment colonoscopy process was €24.23. Average cost per-subject with advanced neoplasia was €3777.30.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of screening CTC was €196.80 per-participant. Our data suggest that the more relevant cost of screening CTC, amenable of intervention, is related to CTC execution and reading process.

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 of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment Methods: Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Due to extensive literature on colorectal cancer and their heterogeneous results, this study aimed to summarize the systematic reviews which review the cost-effectiveness studies on different aspects of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The required data were collected by searching the following key words according to MeSH: "colorectal cancer," "colorectal oncology," "colorectal carcinoma," "colorectal neoplasm," "colorectal tumors," "cost-effectiveness," "systematic review," and "meta-analysis." The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Finally, eight systematic reviews were included in the study. The Drummond checklist was mostly used for assessing the quality of the articles. The main perspective was related to the payer and the least was relevant to the social. The majority of the cases referred to sensitivity analysis (in 76% of the cases) and the lowest point also was allocated to discounting (in 37% of cases). The Markov model was used most widely in the studies. Treatment methods examined in the studies were not cost-effective in comparison with the studied units. Among the screening methods, computerized tomographic colonography and fecal DNA were cost-effective. The average score of the articles' qualities was high (9.8 out of 11).

CONCLUSIONS

The community perspective should be taken into consideration at large in the studies. It is necessary to pay more attention to discounting subject in studies. More frequent application of the Markov model is recommended.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Due to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: "lung cancer", "lung oncology", "lung Carcinoma", "lung neoplasm", "lung tumors", "cost- effectiveness", "systematic review" and "Meta-analysis". The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.

Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer Using CT Colonography

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cancer among throughout the world with the highest rates in developed countries such as the USA. There is ample evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of colorectal cancer screening and, largely thanks to screening initiatives and insurance coverage, epidemiologic analyses show a steady decline in both CRC incidence and mortality rates over the last several decades. However, screening rates for CRC in the US remain low and approximately 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years has not undergone any form of CRC screening, highlighting the need for additional accurate, minimally invasive, and acceptable screening options. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) has emerged as a viable alternative to existing CRC screening tests and research continues to enhance our knowledge regarding the ability of CTC to play a meaningful role in optimizing CRC screening in areas where it is available. This review highlights recent publications of salient research in the field of CTC. CTC continues to evolve, with lower radiation doses and greater evidence of its ability to identify clinical relevant colonic and extracolonic abnormalities. Recent evidence has bolstered the currently recommended CTC screening interval of 5 years and has reiterated the cost-effectiveness of CTC as a CRC screening examination. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests a role for CTC as a polyp and CRC surveillance modality as well as a preoperative adjunct in patients with established CRC. Data supporting the safety and patient acceptance of CTC also has continued to accumulate and CTC has recently been endorsed as an appropriate test for CRC screening in multiple important guidelines and recommendations. CTC is poised to become an important option in the CRC screening and surveillance arena.

The Empirical Foundations of Teleradiology and Related Applications: A Review of the Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Radiology was founded on a technological discovery by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895. Teleradiology also had its roots in technology dating back to 1947 with the successful transmission of radiographic images through telephone lines. Diagnostic radiology has become the eye of medicine in terms of diagnosing and treating injury and disease. This article documents the empirical foundations of teleradiology.

METHODS

A selective review of the credible literature during the past decade (2005-2015) was conducted, using robust research design and adequate sample size as criteria for inclusion.

FINDINGS

The evidence regarding feasibility of teleradiology and related information technology applications has been well documented for several decades. The majority of studies focused on intermediate outcomes, as indicated by comparability between teleradiology and conventional radiology. A consistent trend of concordance between the two modalities was observed in terms of diagnostic accuracy and reliability. Additional benefits include reductions in patient transfer, rehospitalization, and length of stay.

CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials

CT colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive radiological investigation of the colon. Robust evidence indicates that CTC is safe, well tolerated and highly accurate for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and large polyps, which are the targets of screening. Randomized controlled trials were carried out in Europe to evaluate CTC as the primary test for population screening of CRC in comparison with faecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were participation rate and detection rate. Participation rate for screening CTC was in the range of 25-34%, whereas the detection rate of CTC for CRC and advanced adenoma was in the range of 5.1-6.1%. Participation for CTC screening was lower than that for FIT, similar to that for sigmoidoscopy and higher than that for colonoscopy. The detection rate of CTC was higher than that of one FIT round, similar to that of sigmoidoscopy and lower than that of colonoscopy. However, owing to the higher participation rate in CTC screening with respect to colonoscopy screening, the detection rates per invitee of CTC and colonoscopy would be comparable. These results justify consideration of CTC in organized screening programmes for CRC. However, assessment of other factors such as polyp size threshold for colonoscopy referral, management of extracolonic findings and, most importantly, the forthcoming results of cost-effectiveness analyses are crucial to define the role of CTC in primary screening.

The role of virtual colonoscopy in colorectal screening

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The earlier colorectal cancer is detected, the better chance a person has of surviving 5 years after being diagnosed, emphasizing the need for effective and regular colorectal screening. Computed tomographic colonography has repeatedly demonstrated sensitivities equivalent to the current gold standard, optical colonoscopy, in the detection of clinically relevant polyps. It is an accurate, safe, affordable, available, reproducible, quick, and cost-effective option for colorectal screening and should be considered for mass screening.

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials)

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new diagnostic test that may be superior to existing alternatives to investigate the large bowel.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, safety and cost-effectiveness of CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Parallel randomised trials: BE compared with CTC and colonoscopy compared with CTC (randomisation 2 : 1, respectively).

SETTING

A total of 21 NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 55 years with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC).

INTERVENTIONS

CTC, BE and colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For the trial of CTC compared with BE, the primary outcome was the detection rate of CRC and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), with the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation as a secondary outcome. For the trial of CTC compared with colonoscopy, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation, with the detection rate of CRC and large polyps as a secondary outcome. Secondary outcomes for both trials were miss rates for cancer (via registry data), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, patient acceptability, extracolonic pathology and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 8484 patients were registered and 5384 were randomised and analysed (BE trial: 2527 BE, 1277 CTC; colonoscopy trial: 1047 colonoscopy, 533 CTC). Detection rates in the BE trial were 7.3% (93/1277) for CTC, compared with 5.6% (141/2527) for BE (p = 0.0390). The difference was due to better detection of large polyps by CTC (3.6% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.0098), with no significant difference for cancer (3.7% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.66). Significantly more patients having CTC underwent additional investigation (23.5% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.0003). At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for CRC was 6.7% for CTC (three missed cancers) and 14.1% for BE (12 missed cancers). Significantly more patients randomised to CTC than to colonoscopy underwent additional investigation (30% vs. 8.2%; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in detection rates for cancer or large polyps (10.7% for CTC vs. 11.4% for colonoscopy; p = 0.69), with no difference when cancers (p = 0.94) and large polyps (p = 0.53) were analysed separately. At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for cancer was nil for colonoscopy and 3.4% for CTC (one missed cancer). Adverse events were uncommon for all procedures. In 1042 of 1748 (59.6%) CTC examinations, at least one extracolonic finding was reported, and this proportion increased with age (p < 0.0001). A total of 149 patients (8.5%) were subsequently investigated, and extracolonic neoplasia was diagnosed in 79 patients (4.5%) and malignancy in 29 (1.7%). In the short term, CTC was significantly more acceptable to patients than BE or colonoscopy. Total costs for CTC and colonoscopy were finely balanced, but CTC was associated with higher health-care costs than BE. The cost per large polyp or cancer detected was £4235 (95% confidence interval £395 to £9656).

CONCLUSIONS

CTC is superior to BE for detection of cancers and large polyps in symptomatic patients. CTC and colonoscopy detect a similar proportion of large polyps and cancers and their costs are also similar. CTC precipitates significantly more additional investigations than either BE or colonoscopy, and evidence-based referral criteria are needed. Further work is recommended to clarify the extent to which patients initially referred for colonoscopy or BE undergo subsequent abdominopelvic imaging, for example by computed tomography, which will have a significant impact on health economic estimates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.

Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: Clinical application

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) has no longer been the leading cancer killer worldwide for years with the exponential development in computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/CT as well as virtual colonoscopy for early detection, the CRC related mortality is still high. The objective of CRC screening is to reduce the burden of CRC and thereby the morbidity and mortality rates of the disease. It is believed that this goal can be achieved by regularly screening the average-risk population, enabling the detection of cancer at early, curable stages, and polyps before they become cancerous. Large-scale screening with multimodality imaging approaches plays an important role in reaching that goal to detect polyps, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and CRC in early stage. This article reviews kinds of presentative imaging procedures for various screening options and updates detecting, staging and re-staging of CRC patients for determining the optimal therapeutic method and forecasting the risk of CRC recurrence and the overall prognosis. The combination use of virtual colonoscopy and conventional endoscopy, advantages and limitations of these modalities are also discussed.

Virtual colonoscopy: Utility, impact and overview

Computed tomography (CT) colonoscopy is a well-established technique for evaluation of colorectal cancer. Significant advances have been made in the technique of CT colonoscopy since its inception. Excellent results can be achieved in detecting both colorectal cancer and significant sized polyps as long as a meticulous technique is adopted while performing CT colonoscopy. Furthermore, it is important to realize that there is a learning curve involved in interpreting these studies and adequate experience is essential to achieve high sensitivity and specificity with this technique. Indications, contraindications, technique and interpretation, including potential pitfalls in CT colonoscopy imaging, are reviewed in this article. Recent advances and the current role of CT colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening are also discussed.