Colorectal testing utilization and payments in a large cohort of commercially insured US adults

The Efficacy of Real-time Computer-aided Detection of Colonic Neoplasia in Community Practice: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The use of computer-aided detection (CADe) has increased the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but has not shown benefit in real-world implementation studies. We performed a single-center pragmatic RCT to evaluate the impact of real-time CADe on ADRs in colonoscopy performed by community gastroenterologists.

METHODS

We enrolled 1100 patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, positive fecal-immunohistochemical tests, and diagnostic indications at one community-based center from September 2022 to March 2023. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to traditional colonoscopy or real-time CADe. Blinded pathologists analyzed histopathologic findings. The primary outcome was ADR (the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC), sessile-serrated lesion detection rate, and non-neoplastic resection rate.

RESULTS

The median age was 55.5 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years), 61% were female, 72.7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 9.1% had inadequate bowel preparation. The ADR for the CADe group was significantly higher than the traditional colonoscopy group (42.5% vs 34.4%; P = .005). The mean APC was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the traditional colonoscopy group (0.89 ± 1.46 vs 0.60 ± 1.12; P < .001). The improvement in adenoma detection was driven by increased detection of <5 mm adenomas. CADe had a higher sessile-serrated lesion detection rate than traditional colonoscopy (4.7% vs 2.0%; P = .01). The improvement in ADR with CADe was significantly higher in the first half of the study (47.2% vs 33.7%; P = .002) compared with the second half (38.7% vs 34.9%; P = .33).

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-center pragmatic RCT, real-time CADe modestly improved ADR and APC in average-detector community endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05963724).

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With Blood-Based Biomarkers (Liquid Biopsy) vs Fecal Tests or Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation.

METHODS

Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMSmin) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

CMSmin reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMSmin cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMSmin would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation.

CONCLUSIONS

CMSmin could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.

Colonoscopy Outreach for Rural Communities (CORC): A study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a patient navigation program to improve colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is one of the primary methods of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), a leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. However, up to half of patients referred to colonoscopy fail to complete the procedure, and rates of adherence are lower in rural areas.

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy Outreach for Rural Communities (CORC) is a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a centralized patient navigation program provided remotely by a community-based organization to six geographically distant primary care organizations serving rural patients, to improve colonoscopy completion for CRC.

METHODS

CORC is a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Participants aged 45-76 from six primary care organizations serving rural populations in the northwestern United States are randomized 1:1 to patient navigation or standard of care control. The patient navigation is delivered remotely by a trained lay-person from a community-based organization. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of colonoscopy within one year of referral to colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes are colonoscopy completion within 6 and 9 months, time to completion, adequacy of patient bowel preparation, and achievement of cecal intubation. Analyses will be stratified by primary care organization.

DISCUSSION

Trial results will add to our understanding about the effectiveness of patient navigation programs to improve colonoscopy for CRC in rural communities. The protocol includes pragmatic adaptations to meet the needs of rural communities and findings may inform approaches for future studies and programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT05453630.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05453630. Registered July 6, 2022.

An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model

BACKGROUND

The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD on community practice.

Cross-sectional survey study of primary care clinics on evidence-based colorectal cancer screening intervention use

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine differences between urban and rural primary care clinics in the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods and evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of primary care clinics in Nebraska. Surveys in paper form were sent out and followed up with telephone interviews to nonrespondents. Of the 375 facilities, 263 (70.1%) responded to the survey.

FINDINGS

Over 30% of urban clinics indicated that 80% or more of their patients were meeting the CRC guidelines compared to 18.3% of rural clinics (P = .03). Rural clinics were more likely than urban clinics to prefer the use of colonoscopy alone or in combination with stool tests (P = .02). The most common interventions for CRC screening included one-on-one patient education and use of computer-based pop-ups to remind providers.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we found some important differences between rural and urban primary care clinics in the implementation of CRC screening. Given that there is evidence for differences in preference for CRC screening methods (colonoscopy vs stool-based tests) between rural and urban community members, it is important to assess the effectiveness of different types of CRC screening interventions by comparing rural and urban primary care clinic patient populations.

Age-Specific Rates and Time-Courses of Gastrointestinal and Nongastrointestinal Complications Associated With Screening/Surveillance Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The rates of serious cardiac, neurologic, and pulmonary events attributable to colonoscopy are poorly characterized, and background event rates are usually not accounted for.

METHODS

We performed a multistate population-based study using changepoint analysis to determine the rates and timing of serious gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal adverse events associated with screening/surveillance colonoscopy, including analyses by age (45 to <55, 55 to <65, 65 to <75, and ≥75 years). Among 4.5 million persons in the Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of California, Florida, and New York who underwent screening/surveillance colonoscopy in 2005-2015, we ascertained serious postcolonoscopy events in excess of background rates in Emergency Department (SEDD) and Inpatient Databases (SID).

RESULTS

Most serious nongastrointestinal postcolonoscopy events were expected based on the background rate and not associated with colonoscopy itself. However, associated nongastrointestinal events predominated over gastrointestinal events at ages ≥65 years, including more myocardial infarctions plus ischemic strokes than perforations at ages ≥75 years (361 [95% confidence intervals {CI} 312-419] plus 1,279 [95% CI 1,182-1,384] vs 912 [95% CI 831-1,002] per million). At all ages, the observed-to-expected ratios for days 0-7, 0-30, and 0-60 after colonoscopy were substantially >1 for gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation, but minimally >1 for most nongastrointestinal complications. Risk periods ranged from 1 to 125 days depending on complication type and age. No excess postcolonoscopy in-hospital deaths were observed.

DISCUSSION

Although crude counts substantially overestimate nongastrointestinal events associated with colonoscopy, nongastrointestinal complications exceed bleeding and perforation risk in older persons. The inability to ascertain modifications to antiplatelet therapy was a study limitation. Our results can inform benefit-to-risk determinations for preventive colonoscopy.

Implications of the growing incidence of global colorectal cancer

The expanding worldwide burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant public health issue. Understanding the shift in the geo-demographic, socioeconomic, environmental, and biogenetic distribution of CRC is paramount. The Human Development Index (HDI) measuring life expectancy, education, and gross national income is a composite index comparing health outcomes between countries. This has been shown to be a useful comparison tool in measuring the health dimension among high, middle, and low-income countries. CRC has a wide global distribution in incidence and mortality with majority of cases occurring in countries with a high or very high HDI. However, in developing countries and in those undergoing rapid socioeconomic growth, there has also been a marked rise in CRC rates as well. This pattern is noted globally and seems to correlate with increase in a country's specific HDI. Additionally, another unique pattern of CRC incidence has emerged with more cancers being diagnosed in adults younger than 50 years old. Further investigation is needed to determine CRC risks reduction and implementation of primary prevention and early detection strategies within different country specific healthcare systems. Globally, improvement in healthcare equality, access to medical care and screening for CRC particularly in resource-limited (low HDI) countries is essential.

Differences in Lifetime Earning Potential Between Pediatric and Adult Physicians

OBJECTIVES

Compare lifetime earning potential between academic pediatric and adult medicine generalists and subspecialists. Evaluate the effect of decreasing the length of training for pediatric subspecialties whose length of training is longer than that for the adult medicine counterpart.

METHODS

Using compensation and debt data from national physician surveys for 2019-2020, we estimated and compared the lifetime earning potential for academic pediatric and adult physicians.

RESULTS

Lifetime earning potential was higher for adult physicians than for pediatric physicians across all comparable areas of both general and subspecialty academic practice. The lifetime earning potentials for adult physicians averaged 25% more, or $1.2 million higher, than those of the corresponding pediatric physicians. These differences predominantly were not attributable to unequal training length: when we modeled a shortened length of training for pediatric subspecialists, lifetime earning potential for adult subspecialists still averaged 19% more than that for pediatric subspecialists. For both pediatric and adult medicine, the primarily inpatient, procedure-oriented subspecialties had higher lifetime earning potential than the outpatient, less procedure-oriented subspecialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide differences in lifetime earning potential between pediatric and adult physicians reflected lower compensation in pediatrics, rather than any differences in training length. Inpatient-based, more procedure-oriented subspecialties had higher lifetime earning potential than outpatient-based, less procedure-oriented subspecialties. Interventions that improve the lifetime earning potential of general pediatrics and the pediatric subspecialties, as well as the less procedure-oriented subspecialties across both pediatric and adult medicine, have the potential to impact both clinical practice and access to care.

Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Colonoscopy at Ages 45-49 or 50-54 Years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages younger than 50 years is increasing, leading to proposals to lower the CRC screening initiation age to 45 years. Data on the effectiveness of CRC screening at ages 45-49 years are lacking.

METHODS

We studied the association between undergoing colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years and CRC incidence in a retrospective population-based cohort study using Florida's linked Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases with mandated reporting from 2005 to 2017 and Cox models extended for time-varying exposure.

RESULTS

Among 195,600 persons with and 2.6 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 45-49 years, 276 and 4844 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 20.8 (95% CI, 18.5-23.4) and 30.6 (95% CI, 29.8-31.5) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Among 660,248 persons with and 2.4 million without exposure to colonoscopy at ages 50-54 years, 798 and 6757 developed CRC, resulting in CRC incidence rates of 19.0 (95% CI, 17.7-20.4) and 51.9 (95% CI, 50.7-53.1) per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios for incident CRC after undergoing compared with not undergoing colonoscopy were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.56) at ages 45-49 years and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.29-0.34) at ages 50-54 years. The results were similar for women and men (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57 and hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.62 at ages 45-49 years, and hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.31-0.39 and hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.32 at ages 50-54 years, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy at ages 45-49 or 50-54 years was associated with substantial decreases in subsequent CRC incidence. These findings can inform screening guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing vs Colonoscopy or Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Alaska Native People

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019.

RESULTS

With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

AIM

Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: Differences Between Rural and Urban Privately-Insured Population

Earlier studies investigated rural-urban colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities among older adults or used surveys. The objective was to compare screening uptake between rural and urban individuals 50–64 years of age using private health insurance. Data were analyzed from 58,774 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska beneficiaries. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between rural-urban and CRC screening use. Results indicate that rural individuals were 56% more likely to use the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) compared with urban residents, but rural females were 68% less likely to use FOBT. Individuals with few Primary Care Physician (PCP) visits and rural-women are the least to receive screening. To enhance CRC screening, a policy should be devised for the training and placement of female PCP in rural areas. In particular, multilevel interventions, including education, more resources, and policies to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, are needed. Further research is warranted to investigate barriers to CRC screening in rural areas.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The American Cancer Society has recommended initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45 years instead of 50 years. We estimated the cost effectiveness and national effects of adopting this recommendation.

METHODS

We compared screening strategies and alternative resource allocations in a validated Markov model. We based national projections on screening participation rates by age and census data.

RESULTS

Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 years in 1000 persons averted 4 CRCs and 2 CRC deaths, gained 14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost $33,900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies. These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 currently unscreened 55-year-old persons or 342 currently unscreened 65-year-old persons, through age 75 years. These alternatives averted 13-14 CRC cases and 6-7 CRC deaths and gained 27-28 discounted QALYs while saving $163,700-$445,800. Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from a fecal immunochemical test yielded greater benefits and savings. Initiation of fecal immunochemical testing at age 45 years instead of 50 years cost $7700/QALY gained. Shifting current age-specific screening rates to 5 years earlier could avert 29,400 CRC cases and 11,100 CRC deaths over the next 5 years but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion. Improving screening rates to 80% in persons who are 50-75 years old would avert nearly 3-fold more CRC deaths at one third the incremental cost.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model analysis, we found that starting CRC screening at age 45 years is likely to be cost effective. However, greater benefit, at lower cost, could be achieved by increasing participation rates for unscreened older and higher-risk persons.

Contrasting Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Under Commercial Insurance vs. Medicare

OBJECTIVES

Most cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening assume Medicare payment rates and a lifetime horizon. Our aims were to examine the implications of differential payment levels and time horizons for commercial insurers vs. Medicare on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening.

METHODS

We used our validated Markov cohort simulation of CRC screening in the average risk US population to examine CRC screening at ages 50-64 under commercial insurance, and at ages 65-80 under Medicare, using a health-care sector perspective. Model outcomes included discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per person, and incremental cost/QALY gained.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs/person were 20-44% higher when assuming commercial payment rates rather than Medicare rates for people under 65. Most of the substantial clinical benefit of screening at ages 50-64 was realized at ages ≥65. For commercial payers with a time horizon of ages 50-64, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) were cost-effective (<$61,000/QALY gained), but colonoscopy was costly (>$185,000/QALY gained). Medicare experienced substantial clinical benefits and cost-savings from screening done at ages <65, even if screening was not continued. Among those previously screened, continuing FOBT and FIT under Medicare was cost-saving and continuing colonoscopy was highly cost-effective (<$30,000/QALY gained), and initiating any screening in those previously unscreened was highly effective and cost-saving.

CONCLUSIONS

Modeling suggests that CRC screening is highly cost-effective over a lifetime even when considering higher payment rates by commercial payers vs. Medicare. Screening may appear relatively costly for commercial payers if only a time horizon of ages 50-64 is considered, but it is predicted to yield substantial clinical and economic benefits that accrue primarily at ages ≥65 under Medicare.

Colorectal cancer screening use among insured adults: Is out-of-pocket cost a barrier to routine screening?

AIM

To describe the characteristics of adults who needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not due to the extra cost and assess the impact of limited financial resources on the receipt of routine fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy for colon cancer screening among insured patients.

METHODS

Data obtained from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System included 215436 insured adults age 50-75 years. We computed frequencies, adjusted odds ratios (aORs), and 95%CIs using SAS v9.3 software.

RESULTS

Nine percent of the study population needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not because of cost. The numbers were significantly higher among those aged 50-64 (P < 0.0001), Non-Hispanic Whites (P < 0.0001), and those with a primary care physician (P < 0.0001) among other factors. Adjusting for possible confounders, aORs for not seeing the doctor in the past year because of cost were: stool occult blood test within last year aOR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.76-1.02, sigmoidoscopy within last year aOR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.48-1.07, colonoscopy within the last year aOR = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.81-1.02.

CONCLUSION

We found that the limited financial resources within the past 12 mo were significantly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) non-screening. Patients with risk factors identified in this study should adhere to CRC guidelines and should receive financial help if needed.

Colorectal cancer screening use among insured adults: Is out-of-pocket cost a barrier to routine screening?

AIM

To describe the characteristics of adults who needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not due to the extra cost and assess the impact of limited financial resources on the receipt of routine fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy for colon cancer screening among insured patients.

METHODS

Data obtained from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System included 215436 insured adults age 50-75 years. We computed frequencies, adjusted odds ratios (aORs), and 95%CIs using SAS v9.3 software.

RESULTS

Nine percent of the study population needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not because of cost. The numbers were significantly higher among those aged 50-64 (P < 0.0001), Non-Hispanic Whites (P < 0.0001), and those with a primary care physician (P < 0.0001) among other factors. Adjusting for possible confounders, aORs for not seeing the doctor in the past year because of cost were: stool occult blood test within last year aOR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.76-1.02, sigmoidoscopy within last year aOR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.48-1.07, colonoscopy within the last year aOR = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.81-1.02.

CONCLUSION

We found that the limited financial resources within the past 12 mo were significantly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) non-screening. Patients with risk factors identified in this study should adhere to CRC guidelines and should receive financial help if needed.

Low Rates of Gastrointestinal and Non-Gastrointestinal Complications for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopies in a Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

The full spectrum of serious non-gastrointestinal post-colonoscopy complications has not been well characterized. We analyzed rates of and factors associated with adverse post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal (GI) and non-gastrointestinal events (cardiovascular, pulmonary, or infectious) attributable to screening or surveillance colonoscopy (S-colo) and non-screening or non-surveillance colonoscopy (NS-colo).

METHODS

We performed a population-based study of colonoscopy complications using databases from California hospital-owned and nonhospital-owned ambulatory facilities, emergency departments, and hospitals from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2011. We identified patients who underwent S-colo (1.58 million), NS-colo (1.22 million), or low-risk comparator procedures (joint injection, aspiration, lithotripsy; arthroscopy, carpal tunnel; or cataract; 2.02 million) in California's Ambulatory Services Databases. We identified patients who developed adverse events within 30 days, and factors associated with these events, through patient-level linkage to California's Emergency Department and Inpatient Databases.

RESULTS

After S-colo, the numbers of lower GI bleeding, perforation, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke per 10,000-persons were 5.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-5.9), 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.3), 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-2.9), and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.1-5.2) without biopsy or intervention; with biopsy or intervention, numbers per 10,000-persons were 36.4 (95% CI, 35.1-37.6), 6.3 (95% CI, 5.8-6.8), 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7), and 9.1 (95% CI, 8.5-9.7). Rates of dysrhythmia were higher. After NS-colo, event rates were substantially higher. Most serious complications led to hospitalization, and most GI complications occurred within 14 days of colonoscopy. Ranges of adjusted odds ratios for serious GI complications, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and serious pulmonary events after S-colo vs comparator procedures were 2.18 (95% CI, 2.02-2.36) to 5.13 (95% CI, 4.81-5.47), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.83-1.19), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99-1.29), and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.68) to 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Biopsy or intervention, comorbidity, black race, low income, public insurance, and NS-colo were associated with post-colonoscopy adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based study in California, we found that following S-colo, rates of serious GI adverse events were low but clinically relevant, and that rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and serious pulmonary events were no higher than after low-risk comparator procedures. Rates of myocardial infarction are similar to, but rates of stroke are higher than, those reported for the general population.

Using Social Media to Characterize Public Sentiment Toward Medical Interventions Commonly Used for Cancer Screening: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Although cancer screening reduces morbidity and mortality, millions of people worldwide remain unscreened. Social media provide a unique platform to understand public sentiment toward tools that are commonly used for cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to examine public sentiment toward colonoscopy, mammography, and Pap smear and how this sentiment spreads by analyzing discourse on Twitter.

METHODS

In this observational study, we classified 32,847 tweets (online postings on Twitter) related to colonoscopy, mammography, or Pap smears using a naive Bayes algorithm as containing positive, negative, or neutral sentiment. Additionally, we characterized the spread of sentiment on Twitter using an established model to study contagion.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy-related tweets were more likely to express negative than positive sentiment (negative to positive ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.51-1.80, P<.001), in contrast to the more positive sentiment expressed regarding mammography (negative to positive ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.39-0.47, P<.001). The proportions of negative versus positive tweets about Pap smear were not significantly different (negative to positive ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04, P=.18). Positive and negative tweets tended to share lexical features across screening modalities. Positive tweets expressed resonance with the benefits of early detection. Fear and pain were the principal lexical features seen in negative tweets. Negative sentiment for colonoscopy and mammography spread more than positive sentiment; no correlation with sentiment and spread was seen for Pap smear.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of social media data provides a unique, quantitative framework to better understand the public's perception of medical interventions that are commonly used for cancer screening. Given the growing use of social media, public health interventions to improve cancer screening should use the health perceptions of the population as expressed in social network postings about tests that are frequently used for cancer screening, as well as other people they may influence with such postings.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study

Background

Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20–60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers.

Results

At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society’s willingness to pay (<$50,000/QALY). Threshold analysis demonstrated that an inadequate bowel preparation rate of 13% or less is necessary before colonoscopy is considered more cost effective than FIT. At inadequate bowel preparation rates of 25%, colonoscopy is still more cost effective compared to sigmoidoscopy and stool DNA test. Sensitivity analysis of all inputs adjusted by ±10% showed incremental cost effectiveness ratio values were influenced most by the specificity, adherence, and sensitivity of FIT and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Screening colonoscopy is not a cost effective strategy when compared with fecal immunochemical test, as long as the inadequate bowel preparation rate is greater than 13%.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We developed a model to determine whether a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test that detects colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps with higher sensitivity and lower specificity, but at a higher cost, than the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used in screening.

METHODS

We used a Markov model of average-risk CRC screening to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening with the MT-sDNA test vs FIT or colonoscopy. We accounted for the complex longitudinal participation patterns observed in organized programs vs opportunistic screening, as well as organized programs' patient support costs and differential payment rates by commercial insurers vs Medicare.

RESULTS

With optimal adherence, yearly FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years were dominant (more effective and less costly) than MT-sDNA every 3 years. Compared with successful organized FIT programs (50% consistent and 27% intermittent participation; patient support costs, $153/cycle), the patient support program for the MT-sDNA test would need 68% of subjects to participate consistently and 32% to participate intermittently every 3 years, or the MT-sDNA test would need to cost 60% less than in the base case ($260 commercial payment and $197 Medicare payment), for the MT-sDNA test to be preferred over FIT at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with opportunistic yearly FIT screening (15% consistent and 30% intermittent participation), performing the MT-sDNA test every 3 years would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the MT-sDNA test achieved a participation rate more than 1.7-fold that of FIT. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Assuming equal participation across strategies and a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, FIT was preferred in 99.3% of iterations in Monte Carlo simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model, we found FIT and colonoscopy to be more effective and less costly than the MT-sDNA test when participation rates were equal for all strategies. For the MT-sDNA test to be cost effective, the patient support program included in its cost would need to achieve substantially higher participation rates than those of FIT, whether in organized programs or under the opportunistic screening setting that is more common in the United States than in the rest of the world.

Sedation in the Endoscopy Suite

OPINION STATEMENT

Sedation practices in the endoscopy suite have changed dramatically in the decades since the introduction of routine colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients initially received moderate sedation (or even no sedation), but now frequently receive monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This significant shift has introduced anesthesiologists to the endoscopy suite along with new sedative medications and safety concerns. Appreciating the ramifications of this change requires an understanding of sedation depth, patient selection, drug use, sedation delivery, patient monitoring, recovery from sedation, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, the changing landscape of healthcare quality and reimbursement challenges us to provide the best possible care for our patients in the most economical way possible. The endoscopy suite is a unique sedation environment, and it is the purpose of this article to review those elements that contribute to a uniquely demanding work environment.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive services in an effort to encourage use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national population-based sample before and after implementation of the ACA.

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) between 2009 and 2012 comparing CRC screening rates before and after implementation of the ACA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults 50-64 with private health insurance and adults 65-75 with Medicare.

MAIN MEASURES

Self-reported receipt of screening colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within the past year among those eligible for screening.

KEY RESULTS

Our study included 8617 adults aged 50-64 and 3761 adults aged 65-75. MEPS response rates ranged from 58 to 63%. Among adults aged 50-64, 18.9-20.9% received a colonoscopy in the survey year, 0.59-2.1% received a sigmoidoscopy, and 7.9-10.4% received an FOBT. For adults aged 65-75, 23.6-27.7% received a colonoscopy, 1.3-3.2% a sigmoidoscopy, and 13.5-16.4% an FOBT. In adjusted analyses, among participants aged 50-64, there was no increase in yearly rates of colonoscopy (-0.28 percentage points, 95% CI -2.3 to 1.7, p = 0.78), sigmoidoscopy (-1.1%, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.46, p = <0.001), or FOBT (-1.6%, 95% CI -3.2 to -0.03, p = 0.046) post-ACA. For those aged 65-75, rates of colonoscopy (+2.3%, 95% CI -1.4 to 6.0, p = 0.22), sigmoidoscopy (+0.34%, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.6, p = 0.58) and FOBT (-0.65, 95% CI -4.1 to 2.8, p = 0.72) did not increase. Among those aged 65-75 with Medicare and no additional insurance, the use of colonoscopy rose by 12.0% (95% CI 3.3 to 20.8, p = 0.007). Among participants with Medicare living in poverty, colonoscopy use also increased (+5.7%, 95% CI 0.18 to 11.3, p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Eliminating cost-sharing for CRC screening has not resulted in changes in the use of CRC screening services for many Americans, although use may have increased in the post-ACA period among some Medicare beneficiaries.

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.

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.

Costs of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery and readmissions in privately insured US patients

BACKGROUND

Surgical costs are influenced by perioperative care, readmissions, and further therapies. We aimed to characterize costs in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery in the United States.

METHODS

The MarketScan database (2008-2010) was used to identify privately insured patients undergoing pancreatectomy (n = 2254) or hepatectomy (n = 1702). Costs associated with the index surgery, readmissions, and total short-term costs were assessed from a third party payer perspective using generalized linear regression models.

RESULTS

Mean total costs of pancreatectomy and hepatectomy were $107,600 (95% confidence interval [CI], 101,200-114,000) and $81,300 (95% CI, 77,600-85,000), respectively, with corresponding surgical costs of 69.2% and 60.9%. Ninety-day readmission costs were $36,200 (95% CI, 32,000-40,400) and $34,100 (95% CI, 28,100-40,100), respectively. In multivariate analysis, readmissions were associated with an almost two-fold increase in total costs in both pancreatectomy (cost ratio = 1.98; P < 0.001) and hepatectomy (cost ratio = 1.92; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is associated with significant economic burden in the privately insured population. Substantial costs are incurred beyond the index surgical admission, with readmissions representing a major source of potentially preventable health care spending. Sustained efforts in defining high-risk populations and decreasing the burden of postoperative complications through a combination of prevention and improved outpatient management offer promising strategies to reduce readmissions and control costs.