Can colonoscopy remain cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening? The impact of practice patterns and the Will Rogers phenomenon on costs

AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms.

Higher risk of advanced histology in adenoma less than 10 mm in fecal immunochemical test screening: Implication for management

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Whether diminutive or small adenomas detected by fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are associated with a higher risk of advanced histology remains unknown. We investigated the prevalence of advanced histology in diminutive and small adenomas detected by FIT and compared with that detected by colonoscopy screening.

METHODS

We prospectively compared 1860 FIT-positive patients (FIT-positive cohort) and 6691 average-risk patients (screening colonoscopy cohort). Both groups underwent colonoscopies and were shown to have neoplastic lesions. The prevalence of advanced histology was determined, as was the associations with size and FIT positivity.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3920 neoplastic lesions from the FIT-positive cohort and 9789 neoplastic lesions from the screening colonoscopy cohort. Eighty (4.3%) diminutive lesions in FIT-positive cohort had advanced histology but without any invasive cancer. Twenty-one patients in the FIT-positive cohort and 49 in the screening colonoscopy cohort with diminutive adenomas displayed advanced histology (3.5% vs 1.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-5.06). Sixteen patients in the FIT-positive cohort (2.7%) with diminutive adenomas might have changed the surveillance interval if a resect-and-discard strategy was applied, with a higher likelihood compared with the screening colonoscopy cohort (aOR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.53-4.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal immunochemical test screening detected more diminutive and small adenomas with advanced histology compared with colonoscopy screening. Its impact on current management of diminutive polyp is limited.

High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas has limited long-term evidence to support current practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the lifetime benefits and costs of high- versus low-intensity surveillance.

DESIGN

Microsimulation model.

DATA SOURCES

U.S. cancer registry, cost data, and published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. patients aged 50, 60, or 70 years with low-risk adenomas (LRAs) (1 to 2 small adenomas) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs) (3 to 10 small adenomas or ≥1 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

No further screening or surveillance, routine screening after 10 years, low-intensity surveillance (10 years after LRA removal and 5 years after HRA removal), and high-intensity surveillance (5 years after LRA removal and 3 years after HRA removal).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Without surveillance or screening, lifetime CRC incidence for patients aged 50 years was 10.9% after LRA removal and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or high-intensity surveillance decreased incidence by 39%, 46% to 48%, and 55% to 56%, respectively. Incidence of CRC and surveillance benefits were higher for adenomas detected at FIT screening and lower for older patients. High-intensity surveillance cost less than $30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with low-intensity surveillance.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

High-intensity surveillance cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained in most alternative scenarios for adenoma recurrence, CRC incidence, longevity, quality of life, screening ages, surveillance ages, test performance, disutilities, and cost.

LIMITATION

Few surveillance outcome data exist.

CONCLUSION

The model suggests that high-intensity surveillance as recommended in the United States provides modest but clinically relevant benefits over low-intensity surveillance at acceptable cost.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).

Natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diminutive (1-5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) polyps comprise 90% of detected lesions during colonoscopy and rarely contain advanced histology or colorectal cancer (CRC). Routine removal of these lesions results in a significant burden to colonoscopy programs. At the same time, the risk for progression of these polyps to CRC is unclear. We performed a systematic review to explore the natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies investigating the natural history of colorectal polyps. Studies were considered eligible when they assessed patients with 1- to 9-mm polyps that were not treated with polypectomy and that underwent follow-up. We excluded studies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, polyposis syndromes, and previously diagnosed CRC. We independently extracted study characteristics and evaluated CRC and advanced adenoma (size ≥ 10 mm, containing high-grade dysplasia or villous features) as outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Of 8775 retrieved studies, 9 studies with 721 patients were included that prospectively evaluated the evolution of 1- to 9-mm polyps. In 7 studies the average duration of observation was 2 to 3 years. There was only 1 study in which 1 small polyp might have progressed to cancer. Of 1034 adenomas sized 1 to 9 mm in those studies, 6% progressed to advanced adenomas over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review, it appears that some 1- to 9-mm adenomas progress to advanced adenomas within 2 to 3 years. No information on long-term CRC transition rates was found. Defining the biologic significance of these polyps is needed to balance between benefits and harm of polypectomy. (PROSPERO database registration number: CRD42016036577.).

LINE-1 is preferentially hypomethylated within adenomatous polyps in the presence of synchronous colorectal cancer

Background

Conventional tubular adenomas are frequently detected in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy and are over-represented in patients who will develop colorectal cancer (CRC). Whether features of adenomas could serve as predictors of synchronous CRC is not known. Here, we investigate whether global methylation markers, including LINE-1, differ within adenomas in patients with and without synchronous CRC.

Methods

Colorectal tubular/tubulovillous adenomatous polyps in the absence (P group, n = 45) and in the presence of synchronous CRC (PC group, n = 32) were identified. Global methylation and demethylation by ELISA for 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) and 5-hydroxymethyl cytosine (5-hmC), respectively, were assessed in polyps and adjacent normal non-neoplastic tissue. LINE-1 hypomethylation was assessed by pyrosequencing of bisulfite-converted DNA as well.

Results

Global methylation (5-mC) showed no differences in overall methylation status in the adenomatous polyps in the two groups (5-mC relative to control %, PC group 0.117; P group 0.161, p = 0.148). Global hydroxymethylation 5-hmC was also not significantly different in adenomatous polyps of the PC group than in those of the P group (0.0059 vs 0.0097, p = 0.681). Similarly, global 5-hmC was not different between normal tissues from patients without neoplasia in comparison to those from CRC patients (0.0461 ± 0.080 vs 0.039 ± 0.159, p = 0.215). In contrast, adenomatous polyps of the PC group had lower levels of LINE-1 methylation compared to the adenomas in the P group (53.07 ± 4.5 vs 59.95 ± 5.4, p < 0.001). LINE-1 methylation was also significantly lower in the normal tissue from cancer patients compared to that from patients without any neoplasia (58.07 ± 3.78 vs 71.50 ± 6.47, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

LINE-1 hypomethylation of precancerous adenomas correlates with the presence of synchronous CRC. Measurement of DNA hypomethylation levels of colorectal adenomas by LINE-1 could have future implications in approaches to defining CRC risk in screening programs.

CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to compare rates of lesion detection at CT colonographic (CTC) screening of adults without symptoms who had and who did not have a family history of colorectal cancer according to American Cancer Society guidelines and to consider the clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over 134 months, consecutively registered CTC cohorts of adults without symptoms who had (n = 156; 88 [56.4%] women; 68 [43.6%] men; mean age, 56.3 years) and who did not have (n = 8857; 4757 [53.7%] women; 4100 [46.3%] men; mean age, 56.6 years) an American Cancer Society-defined family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative with diagnosis before age 60 years or two first-degree relatives with diagnosis at any age) were compared for relevant colorectal findings.

RESULTS

For the family history versus no family history cohorts, the frequency of all nondiminutive polyps (≥ 6 mm) reported at CTC was 23.7% versus 15.5% (p = 0.007); small polyps (6-9 mm), 13.5% versus 9.1% (p = 0.068); and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), 10.2% versus 6.5% (p = 0.068). The rate of referral for colonoscopy was greater for the family history cohort (16.0% vs 10.5%; p = 0.035). However, the frequencies of proven advanced adenoma (4.5% vs 3.2%; p = 0.357), nonadvanced adenoma (5.1% vs 2.6%; p = 0.070), and cancer (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.999) were not significantly increased. The difference in positive rates between the two cohorts (11.5% vs 4.3%; p < 0.001) was primarily due to nonneoplastic findings of no colorectal cancer relevance, such as small hyperplastic polyps, diverticular disease, and false-positive CTC findings.

CONCLUSION

Although the overall CTC-positive and colonoscopy referral rates were higher in the family history cohort, the clinically relevant frequencies of advanced neoplasia and cancer were not sufficiently increased to preclude CTC screening. These findings support the use of CTC as a front-line screening option in adults with a family history of colorectal cancer.

Surveillance after colorectal polyp removal

Surveillance colonoscopy is aimed to reduce CRC incidence and mortality by removing adenomas and detecting CRC in early stage. However, colonoscopy is an invasive and expensive procedure and surveillance colonoscopy should be targeted at those who are most likely to benefit at the minimum frequency required to protect for cancer. Surveillance recommendations are based on guidelines, but the recommendations in those guidelines are based on moderate to low quality evidence and adherence to these guidelines is poor. As surveillance colonoscopy is one of the main indications for colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopies are filling colonoscopy lists, the current surveillance practice results in spending lots of money and capacity in a suboptimal way. Randomized controlled trials to compare surveillance intervals are not available. However, current evidence based on several case-control and cohort studies suggests there is no need for surveillance in patients with low-risk adenomas, i.e. 1-2 adenomas smaller than 10 mm. Patients with 3 or more adenomas or any adenoma larger than 10 mm seem to be the ones at real risk for metachronous adenomas or cancer. In those patients, surveillance colonoscopy is indicated at 3 years after baseline until ongoing studies will confirm the safety of enlarging this interval. Randomized controlled trials and experimental research are important in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence for the optimization of follow-up strategies for patients with adenomas and serrated polyps.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm

Purpose To determine the rate and types of polyps detected at repeat computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening after initial negative findings at CT colonography screening. Materials and Methods Among 5640 negative CT colonography screenings (no polyps ≥ 6 mm) performed before 2010 at one medical center, 1429 (25.3%; mean age, 61.4 years; 736 women, 693 men) patients have returned for repeat CT colonography screening (mean interval, 5.7 years ± 0.9; range, 4.5-10.7 years). Positive rates and histologic findings of initial and repeat screening were compared in this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study. For all patients with positive findings at repeat CT colonography, the findings were directly compared against the initial CT colonography findings. Fisher exact, Pearson χ², and Student t tests were applied as indicated. Results Repeat CT colonography screening was positive for lesions 6 mm or larger in 173 (12.1%) adults (compared with 14.3% at initial CT colonography screening, P = .29). In the 173 patients, 29.5% (61 of 207) of nondiminutive polyps could be identified as diminutive at the initial CT colonography and 12.6% (26 of 207) were missed. Large polyps, advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and cancer), and invasive cancer were seen in 3.8% (55 of 1429), 2.8% (40 of 1429), and 0.14% (two of 1429), respectively, at follow-up, compared with 5.2% (P = .02), 3.2% (P = .52), and 0.45% (P = .17), respectively, at initial screening. Of 42 advanced lesions in 40 follow-up screenings, 33 (78.6%) were right sided and 22 (52.4%) were flat, compared with 45.4% (P < .001) and 11.3% (P < .001), respectively, at initial screening. Large right-sided serrated lesions were confirmed in 20 individuals (1.4%), compared with 0.5% (P < .001) confirmed at initial screening. Conclusion Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonography screening (3.7%) were lower compared with those at initial screening (5.2%). However, more advanced right-sided lesions were detected at follow-up CT colonography, many of which were flat, serrated lesions. The cumulative findings support both the nonreporting of diminutive lesions and a 5-10-year screening interval. ^© RSNA, 2016 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 30, 2016.

Emerging stool-based and blood-based non-invasive DNA tests for colorectal cancer screening: the importance of cancer prevention in addition to cancer detection

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can be undertaken utilizing a variety of distinct approaches, which provides both opportunities and confusion. Traditionally, there has often been a trade-off between the degree of invasiveness of a screening test and its ability to prevent cancer, with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and optical colonoscopy (OC) at each end of the spectrum. CT colonography (CTC), although currently underutilized for CRC screening, represents an exception since it is only minimally invasive, yet provides accurate evaluation for advanced adenomas. More recently, the FDA approved a multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard) and a blood-based test (Epi proColon) for average-risk CRC screening. This commentary will provide an overview of these two new non-invasive tests, including the clinical indications, mechanism of action, and diagnostic performance. Relevance to radiology practice, including a comparison with CTC, will also be discussed.

Real-time optical diagnosis for diminutive colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging: the VALID randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps are common, and overwhelmingly benign. Routinely, after polypectomy, they are examined pathologically to determine the surveillance intervals. Advances in equipment and techniques, such as narrow-band imaging (NBI) colonoscopy, now permit reliable real-time optical diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised single-masked study involving three institutions to determine whether optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps meets clinical practice standards and reduces the need for histopathology. We randomly assigned eligible patients undergoing routine high-definition colonoscopy to optical diagnosis using near focus versus standard view, using computer-generated block sequence. By validated criteria, we rendered an optical diagnosis and a confidence level (high vs low) for all polyps, using NBI. Our primary endpoint was the number of accurate high-confidence optical diagnoses compared with central blinded pathology in the two groups. We analysed data using intention to treat.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 558 subjects, and randomly assigned 281 to near focus and 277 to standard view optical diagnosis. We detected 1309 predominantly diminutive (74.5%) and neoplastic (60.0%) polyps. Endoscopists were significantly more likely, OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0, p<0.0001), to make a high-confidence optical diagnosis with near focus (85.1%) than standard (72.6%) view. High-confidence diagnoses had 96.4% and 92.0% negative predictive value, respectively. Of all polyps, 75.3% (95% CI71.3% to 78.9%) had a high-confidence accurate prediction using near focus, compared with 63.1% (95% CI 58.5% to 67.6%) using standard view. Optical versus histopathological diagnosis showed excellent agreement between the surveillance intervals, 93.5% in near focus and 92.2% in standard view. The median diagnosis time was 14 s.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time optical diagnosis using NBI colonoscopy may replace the pathology diagnosis for the majority of diminutive colorectal polyps. Using colonoscopy with near focus view increases the confidence level of the optical diagnosis. Optical diagnosis would be a paradigm shift in clinical practice of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01288833.

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

IMPORTANCE

Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Microsimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010.

EXPOSURES

Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Clinical decision support with natural language processing facilitates determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals

BACKGROUND & AIMS

With an increased emphasis on improving quality and decreasing costs, new tools are needed to improve adherence to evidence-based practices and guidelines in endoscopy. We investigated the ability of an automated system that uses natural language processing (NLP) and clinical decision support (CDS) to facilitate determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study at a single Veterans Administration medical center of patients age 40 years and older who had an index outpatient colonoscopy from 2002 through 2009 for any indication except surveillance of a previous colorectal neoplasia. We analyzed data from 10,798 reports, with 6379 linked to pathology results and 300 randomly selected reports. NLP-based CDS surveillance intervals were compared with those determined by paired, blinded, manual review. The primary outcome was adjusted agreement between manual review and the fully automated system.

RESULTS

κ statistical analysis produced a value of 0.74 (P < .001) for agreement between the full text annotation and the NLP-based CDS system. Fifty-five reports (18.3%; 95% confidence interval, 14.1%-23.2%) differed between manual review and CDS recommendations. Of these, NLP error accounted for 30 (54.5%), incomplete resection of adenomatous tissue accounted for 14 (25.5%), and masses observed without biopsy findings of cancer accounted for 4 (7.2%). NLP-based CDS surveillance intervals had higher levels of agreement with the standard (81.7%) than the level agreement between experts (72% agreement between paired reviewers).

CONCLUSIONS

A fully automated system that uses NLP and a guideline-based CSD system can accurately facilitate guideline-recommended adherence surveillance for colonoscopy.

Current management of diminutive colorectal polyps in Taiwan

The majority of polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive polyps, for which the cost of pathological analysis is substantial. In our analysis of a screening cohort of 10737 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy, a total of 15877 neoplastic lesions were detected, of which 10816 (68.1%) were diminutive lesions. Of those diminutive lesions, 90 (0.83%) had a villous component, 14 (0.1%) had high-grade dysplasia, and none had invasive cancer. Only 1.3% of patients were advised to decrease their surveillance interval because of unfavorable histology. Laws regulating medical practice, uncertainty regarding the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of diminutive polyps outside of academic centers, and the relatively low cost of pathological analysis are among the barriers to adopting a 'resect and discard' practice in Taiwan.

Global Budgets and Technology-Intensive Medical Services

BACKGROUND

In 2009-2010, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts entered into global payment contracts (the Alternative Quality contract, AQC) with 11 provider organizations. We evaluated the impact of the AQC on spending and utilization of several categories of medical technologies, including one considered high value (colonoscopies) and three that include services that may be overused in some situations (cardiovascular, imaging, and orthopedic services).

METHODS

Approximately 420,000 unique enrollees in 2009 and 180,000 in 2010 were linked to primary care physicians whose organizations joined the AQC. Using three years of pre-intervention data and a large control group, we analyzed changes in utilization and spending associated with the AQC with a propensity-weighted difference-in-differences approach adjusting for enrollee demographics, health status, secular trends, and cost-sharing.

RESULTS

In the 2009 AQC cohort, total volume of colonoscopies increased 5.2 percent (p=0.04) in the first two years of the contract relative to control. The contract was associated with varied changes in volume for cardiovascular and imaging services, but total spending on cardiovascular services in the first two years decreased by 7.4% (p=0.02) while total spending on imaging services decreased by 6.1% (p<0.001) relative to control. In addition to lower utilization of higher-priced services, these decreases were also attributable to shifting care to lower-priced providers. No effect was found in orthopedics.

CONCLUSIONS

As one example of a large-scale global payment initiative, the AQC was associated with higher use of colonoscopies. Among several categories of services whose value may be controversial, the contract generally shifted volume to lower-priced facilities or services.