Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer

Explorative cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer recurrence detection with next-generation sequencing liquid biopsy in Spain, France, and Germany

Background

Next-generation sequencing liquid biopsy (NGS-LB) for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and surveillance remains an expensive technology as economies of scale have not yet been realized. Nevertheless, the cost of sequencing has decreased while sensitivity has increased, raising the question of whether cost-effectiveness (CE) has already been achieved from the perspective of European healthcare systems.

Objectives

This health economic (HE) modeling study explores the CE of NGS-LB for CRC based on direct treatment costs compared to standard care without liquid biopsy in Spain, France, and Germany.

Methods

A structured literature search was used to collect evidence from 2009 to 2020 on the stage-dependent quality of life (quality-adjusted life-years, QALY), efficacy, and total direct treatment costs (TDC) of NGS-LB. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed. Over the remaining lifetime, cumulative life expectancy (LE), TDC, and QALYs were calculated for 60-year-old men and women in CRC stage III with different assumed effects of NGS-LB of 1% or 3% on improved survival and reduced stage progression, respectively.

Results

The use of NGS-LB increases LE by 0.19 years in Spanish men (France: 0.19 years, Germany: 0.13 years) and by 0.21 years in Spanish women (France: 0.21 years, Germany: 0.14 years), respectively. The 3% discounted cost per QALY gained was 35,571.95 € for Spanish men (France: 31,705.15 €, Germany: 37,537.68 €) and 35,435.71 € for Spanish women (France: 31,295.57 €, Germany: 38,137.08 €) in the scenario with 3% improved survival and reduced disease progression. Compared to the other two countries, Germany has by far the highest TDC, which can amount to >80k euros in the last treatment year.

Conclusion

In this explorative HE modeling study, NGS-LB achieves generally accepted CE levels in CRC treatment from the health system perspective in three major European economies under assumptions of small improvements in cancer recurrence and survival. Confirmation of these findings through clinical trials is encouraged.

Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were based on hypothetical performance of CRC risk prediction and did not consider the association with competing causes of death. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening using real-world data for CRC risk and competing causes of death.

METHODS

Risk predictions for CRC and competing causes of death from a large community-based cohort were used to stratify individuals into risk groups. A microsimulation model was used to optimize colonoscopy screening for each risk group by varying the start age (40-60 years), end age (70-85 years), and screening interval (5-15 years). The outcomes included personalized screening ages and intervals and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform colonoscopy screening (ages 45-75, every 10 years). Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Risk-stratified screening resulted in substantially different screening recommendations, ranging from a one-time colonoscopy at age 60 for low-risk individuals to a colonoscopy every 5 years from ages 40 to 85 for high-risk individuals. Nevertheless, on a population level, risk-stratified screening would increase net quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYG) by only 0.7% at equal costs to uniform screening or reduce average costs by 1.2% for equal QALYG. The benefit of risk-stratified screening improved when it was assumed to increase participation or costs less per genetic test.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized screening for CRC, accounting for competing causes of death risk, could result in highly tailored individual screening programs. However, average improvements across the population in QALYG and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform screening are small.

Cost-effectiveness of preventive aspirin use and intensive downstaging polypectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: A microsimulation modeling study

OBJECTIVE

Although there is increasing evidence to suggest the cost-effectiveness of aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in the general population, no study has assessed cost-effectiveness in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), who are at high risk of developing CRC. We examined the cost-effectiveness of preventive use of low-dose aspirin in FAP patients who had undergone polypectomy in comparison with current treatment practice.

DESIGN

We developed a microsimulation model that simulates a hypothetical cohort of the Japanese population with FAP for 40 years. Three scenarios were created based on three intervention strategies for comparison with no intervention, namely intensive downstaging polypectomy (IDP) of colorectal polyps at least 5.0 mm in diameter, IDP combined with low-dose aspirin, and total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Cost-effective strategies were identified using a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 50,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Compared with no intervention, all strategies resulted in extended QALYs (21.01-21.43 QALYs per individual) and showed considerably reduced colorectal cancer mortality (23.35-53.62 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals). Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold, IDP with low-dose aspirin was more cost-effective than the other strategies, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 compared with no preventive intervention. These findings were confirmed in both one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the strategy of low-dose aspirin with IDP may be cost-effective compared with IDP-only or IPAA under the national fee schedule of Japan.

Health economic evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III colon cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study was to appraise the health economic evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) strategies in stage II and III colon cancer (CC) and identify gaps in the available evidence that might inform further research.

METHOD

A systematic review of published economic evaluations was undertaken. Four databases were searched and full-text publications in English were screened for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarise the evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were identified and stratified by cancer stage and AC strategy. The majority (89%) were full economic evaluations considering both health outcomes, usually measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. AC was found to be cost-effective compared to no AC for both stage II and III CC. Oral and oxaliplatin-based AC was cost-effective for stage III. Three months of CAPOX was cost-effective compared to 6-month in high-risk stage II and stage III CC. Preliminary evidence suggests that biomarker approaches to AC selection in stage II can reduce costs and improve health outcomes. Notably, assessment of QALYs were predominantly reliant on a small number of non-contemporary health-utility studies. Only 32% of studies considered societal costs such as travel and time off work.

CONCLUSIONS

Published economic evaluations consistently supported the use of AC in stage II and III colon cancer. Biomarker-driven approaches to patient selection have great potential to be cost-effective, but more robust clinical and economic evidence is warranted. Patient surveys embedded into clinical trials may address critical knowledge gaps regarding accurate assessment of QALYs and societal costs in the modern era.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: a modelling study

•

The current Shanghai CRC screening program is cost-effective.

•

Changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.

•

The results were sensitive to an increase in the cost of the validated FIT.

•

The results were sensitive to more participation in screening and colonoscopy.

Background

The current community-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Shanghai, launched in 2013, invited individuals aged 50–74 years to triennial screening with a qualitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and questionnaire-based risk assessment (RA). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the existing Shanghai screening program and compare it to using a validated two-sample quantitative FIT.

Methods

We simulated four strategies (no screening, Shanghai FIT, Shanghai FIT + RA and validated FIT) for the Shanghai screening program and evaluated CRC incidence, CRC mortality, the number of life years gained (LYG), the number of FITs, and colonoscopies required for each. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost- effectiveness of each strategy.

Results

All screening modalities reduced CRC incidence and CRC mortality, gained extra number of LYG compared to no screening. Screening using the Shanghai FIT and validated FIT reduced CRC incidence from 45 cases to 43 per 1,000 simulated individuals (4.4%). Incidence was reduced to 42 cases (6.7%) using the Shanghai FIT + RA. All screening strategies reduced CRC mortality by 10.0% (from 10 to 9 deaths) and resulted in 6 to 7 LYG. The validated FIT was the most cost-effective among the evaluated strategies (ICER ¥26,461 per LYG).

Conclusions

Our findings show that the current Shanghai screening program is (cost-) effective compared to no screening, but changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.

Optimising colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: a modelling study

INTRODUCTION

To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Shanghai, China, a CRC screening programme was commenced in 2013 inviting those aged 50-74 years to triennial screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk assessment. However, it is unknown whether this is the optimal screening strategy for this population. We aimed to determine the optimal CRC screening programme for Shanghai in terms of benefits, burden, harms and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Using Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon), we estimated the costs and effects of the current screening programme compared with a situation without screening. Subsequently, we estimated the benefits (life years gained (LYG)), burden (number of screening events, colonoscopies and false-positive tests), harms (number of colonoscopy complications) and costs (Renminb (¥)) of screening for 324 alternative screening strategies. We compared several different age ranges, screening modalities, intervals and FIT cut-off levels. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis determined the optimal strategy assuming a willingness-to-pay of ¥193 931 per LYG.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the current screening programme reduced CRC incidence by 40% (19 cases per 1000 screened individuals) and CRC mortality by 67% (7 deaths). This strategy gained 32 additional life years, increased colonoscopy demand to 1434 per 1000 individuals and cost an additional ¥199 652. The optimal screening strategy was annual testing using a validated one-sample FIT, with a cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin per gram from ages 45 to 80 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ¥62 107). This strategy increased LY by 0.18% and costs by 27%. Several alternative cost-effective strategies using a validated FIT offered comparable benefits to the current programme but lower burden and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current screening programme in Shanghai is effective at reducing CRC incidence and mortality, the programme could be optimised using a validated FIT. When implementing CRC screening, jurisdictions with limited health resources should use a validated test.

Characterization and Valuation of the Uncertainty of Calibrated Parameters in Microsimulation Decision Models

Background: We evaluated the implications of different approaches to characterize the uncertainty of calibrated parameters of microsimulation decision models (DMs) and quantified the value of such uncertainty in decision making.

Methods: We calibrated the natural history model of CRC to simulated epidemiological data with different degrees of uncertainty and obtained the joint posterior distribution of the parameters using a Bayesian approach. We conducted a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on all the model parameters with different characterizations of the uncertainty of the calibrated parameters. We estimated the value of uncertainty of the various characterizations with a value of information analysis. We conducted all analyses using high-performance computing resources running the Extreme-scale Model Exploration with Swift (EMEWS) framework.

Results: The posterior distribution had a high correlation among some parameters. The parameters of the Weibull hazard function for the age of onset of adenomas had the highest posterior correlation of −0.958. When comparing full posterior distributions and the maximum-a-posteriori estimate of the calibrated parameters, there is little difference in the spread of the distribution of the CEA outcomes with a similar expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of $653 and $685, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Ignoring correlation on the calibrated parameters’ posterior distribution produced the broadest distribution of CEA outcomes and the highest EVPI of $809 at the same WTP threshold.

Conclusion: Different characterizations of the uncertainty of calibrated parameters affect the expected value of eliminating parametric uncertainty on the CEA. Ignoring inherent correlation among calibrated parameters on a PSA overestimates the value of uncertainty.

Image-guided navigation for locally advanced primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer: evaluation of its early cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

A first pilot study showed that an image-guided navigation system could improve resection margin rates in locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. Incremental surgical innovation is often implemented without reimbursement consequences, health economic aspects should however also be taken into account. This study evaluates the early cost-effectiveness of navigated surgery compared to standard surgery in LARC and LRRC.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes for navigated and standard surgery. The input parameters were based on pilot data from a prospective (navigation cohort n = 33) and retrospective (control group n = 142) data. Utility values were measured in a comparable group (n = 63) through the EQ5D-5L. Additionally, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Based on this early evaluation, navigated surgery showed incremental costs of €3141 and €2896 in LARC and LRRC. In LARC, navigated surgery resulted in 2.05 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) vs 2.02 QALYs for standard surgery. For LRRC, we found 1.73 vs 1.67 QALYs respectively. This showed an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of €136.604 for LARC and €52.510 for LRRC per QALY gained. In scenario analyses, optimal utilization rates of the navigation technology lowered the ICER to €61.817 and €21.334 for LARC and LRRC. The ICERs of both indications were most sensitive to uncertainty surrounding the risk of progression in the first year after surgery, the risk of having a positive surgical margin, and the costs of the navigation system.

CONCLUSION

Adding navigation system use is expected to be cost-effective in LRRC and has the potential to become cost-effective in LARC. To increase the probability of being cost-effective, it is crucial to optimize efficient use of both the hybrid OR and the navigation system and identify subgroups where navigation is expected to show higher effectiveness.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY.

RESULTS

During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Should Colorectal Cancer Screening in Portugal Start at the Age of 45 Years? A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background and Objective

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in Europe. Recently, new data from the USA and Europe revealed an increase in the incidence of CRC in individuals aged <55 years and a reduction in those aged >65 years. Mortality rate was stable in patients aged <55 years and decreased after the age of 55 years. Based on the USA data, the American Cancer Society (ACS) published a qualified recommendation advocating the start of CRC screening at the age of 45 years. We aimed to evaluate if the changes in the CRC incidence/mortality observed in the USA and the rest of Europe also occur in Portugal, and then perform a cost-utility analysis of CRC screening that starts at 45 years of age.

Methods

We evaluated the incidence of CRC by age group using data from the National Cancer Registry, and the mortality rate according to the National Statistics Institute in the periods 1993-2010 and 2003-2016. A cost-utility analysis was performed with a decision tree from a societal perspective comparing biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or a single colonoscopy screening versus nonscreening at the age of 45 years in Portugal.

Results

In Portugal, in 1993-2010, there was an increase in CRC incidence of 17% (from 25 to 30/100,000), 35% (from 39 to 54/100,000), and 71% (from 52 to 97/100,000) in patients aged 45-49 years, 50-54 years, and 55-59 years, respectively. The mortality rate of patients aged 45-54 years remained stable between 2003 and 2016 (12/100,000) as a counterpoint to a moderate decrease in those aged 55-64 years (from 38 to 35/100,000) and a sharp reduction in those aged 65-75 years (from 93 to 75/100,000). Screening for CRC at the age of 45 years has no cost utility with the current incidence. FIT screening provided an ICUR of EUR 84,304/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) while colonoscopy provided an ICUR of EUR 3,112,244/QALY. On one-way sensitivity analysis, FIT screening would only have cost utility at the present cost of colonoscopy under sedation (EUR 150) and acceptance rates if the incidence rate rises above 47.5/100,000; colonoscopy at this age would have no cost utility despite changes in costs and/or incidence rates.

Conclusion

In Portugal, the incidence of CRC in patients aged 45-55 years has been increasing with a stable mortality rate, in contrast to the decrease in mortality in the age groups covered by the current CRC screening program. However, at present, CRC screening in Portugal at the age of 45 years has no cost utility and will only have this if the incidence rate rises above 47.5/100,000 (vs. the actual incidence of 30/100,000).

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Early Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Risk-Based Selection Strategies for Adjuvant Treatment in Stage II Colon Cancer: The Potential Value of Prognostic Molecular Markers

BACKGROUND

To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1,000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis.

RESULTS

The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23,660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24,643 and €24,542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present.

IMPACT

Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers.

Gender-specific cut-off levels in colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical test: A population-based study of colonoscopy findings and costs

OBJECTIVE

In the population-based Swedish regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program of Stockholm-Gotland using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), gender-specific cut-off levels of fecal hemoglobin are applied, since previous studies have indicated a lower sensitivity of FIT for CRC in women. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the screening costs overall and per detected CRC of this strategy.

METHODS

All individuals aged 60-69 invited to screening in 2015-2017 were included. Cut-off level for positive FIT was 40 µg/g in women and 80 µg/g in men. Those with a positive FIT were referred to colonoscopy. The yield of CRC and screening cost for the study period were assessed and compared to cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders.

RESULTS

Approximately 230,000 individuals were invited. Overall participation rates were 72% in women and 65% in men (p < 0.05). FIT was positive in 4256 individuals (2.7% in both genders). In 3758 colonoscopies, 258 (6.9%) CRCs were detected. The positive predictive value for CRC was significantly higher in men (8.3% vs. 5.8%). In 120 women with CRC, 28 (23%) had FIT < 80 µg/g. Negative colonoscopies were more common in women (24% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). Total costs for the study period were 52,000,000SEK (≈5,200,000€), i.e. 16% higher compared to using cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders, and corresponding to a 3% increment in cost per detected CRC.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of CRC detected in women in the lowest FIT category outweighs the minor reduction in screening costs if the same cut-off level was used as for men.

Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy Versus Bevacizumab in KRAS Wild-Type (WT), Pan-RAS WT, and Pan-RAS WT Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objectives

We aimed to compare the economic value of chemotherapy plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) against chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor mAb) as first-line treatment in KRAS wild-type (WT), pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients from the Hong Kong societal perspective.

Materials and Methods

We developed Markov models and 10-year horizon to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR therapy against chemotherapy plus Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and pan-RAS WT left-sided mCRC. We considered two times of the local gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (2× GDPpc; US$97,832).

Results

Adding anti-EGFR mAb to chemotherapy provides additional 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.29), 0.32 (95% CI 0.27-0.37), and 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.63) QALY compared to adding Bev in KRAS WT, pan-RAS WT, and left-sided pan-RAS WT mCRC populations respectively. The corresponding ICER is US$106,847 (95% CI 87,806-134,523), US$88,565 (95% CI 75,678-105,871), US$76,537 (95% CI 67,794-87,917) per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions

Anti-EGFR therapy is more cost-effective than Bev as a first-line targeted therapy in left-sided pan-RAS WT and pan-RAS WT, with ICER <US$100,000/QALY, compared to KRAS WT mCRC population.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.

CONCLUSION

At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in a low incidence country: The case of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective in many Western countries, and many have successfully implemented CRC screening programs. For countries with a lower CRC incidence, like Saudi Arabia, the value of CRC screening is less evident and requires careful weighing of harms, benefits, and costs.

METHODS

We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to simulate a male and female cohort with life expectancy and CRC risk as observed in Saudi Arabia. For both cohorts, we evaluated strategies without screening, with annual or biennial faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and with 10-yearly or once-only colonoscopy. We also considered different start and end ages of screening. For both cohorts, we estimated lifetime costs and effects of each strategy. We then identified a set of potentially cost-effective strategies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) defined as the additional cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Without CRC screening, an estimated 14 per 1,000 males would develop CRC during their lifetime and 9 would die from CRC. Several strategies proved potentially cost-effective including biennial FIT at ages 55-65 (ICER of $7,400), once-only colonoscopy at age 55 (ICER of $7,700), and 10-yearly colonoscopy at ages 50-65, 45-65, and 45-75 (ICERs of $34,000, 71,000, and 375,000, respectively). For females, risk of CRC was lower and CRC screening was therefore less cost-effective, but efficient strategies were largely similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite low CRC incidence in Saudi Arabia, some FIT or colonoscopy screening strategies may meet reasonable thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The optimal strategy will depend on multiple factors including the willingness to pay per QALY, the colonoscopy capacity, and the accepted budget impact.

Very-low-dose aspirin and surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with advanced adenomas: network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained.

RESULTS

According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.

Model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of risk-based selection strategies for adjuvant chemotherapy in Dutch stage II colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies to improve the selection of surgically treated stage II colon cancer (CC) patients for adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Using the 'Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer' (PATTERN) model, we evaluated five selection strategies: (1) no chemotherapy, (2) Dutch guideline recommendations assuming observed adherence, (3) Dutch guideline recommendations assuming perfect adherence, (4) biomarker mutation OR pT4 stage strategy in which patients with MSS status combined with a pT4 stage or a mutation in BRAF and/or KRAS receive chemotherapy assuming perfect adherence and (5) biomarker mutation AND pT4 stage strategy in which patients with MSS status combined with a pT4 stage tumor and a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation receive chemotherapy assuming perfect adherence. Outcomes were number of CC deaths per 1000 patients and total discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (pp). Analyses were conducted from a societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The reference strategy, that is, no adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in 139 CC deaths in a cohort of 1000 patients, 8.077 QALYs pp and total costs of €22,032 pp. Strategies 2-5 were more effective (range 8.094-8.217 QALYs pp and range 118-136 CC deaths per 1000 patients) and more costly (range €22,404-€25,102 pp). Given a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the optimal use of resources would be to treat patients with either the full adherence strategy and biomarker mutation OR pT4 stage strategy.

CONCLUSION

Selection of stage II CC patients for chemotherapy can be improved by either including biomarker status in the selection strategy or by improving adherence to the Dutch guideline recommendations.

Longitudinal effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and related neuropathy on health utility in stage II and III colon cancer patients: A prospective cohort study

Patient's quality of life should be included in clinical decision making regarding the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in stage II/III colon cancer. Therefore, quality of life, summarized as health utility (HU), was evaluated for patients treated with and without ACT. Furthermore, the role of chemotherapy–induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) on HU was evaluated. Patients diagnosed with stage II/III colon cancer between 2011 and 2019 and participating in the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort were included (n = 914). HU scores were assessed with the EQ‐5D‐5L at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patients treated with ACT received mainly capecitabine and oxaliplatin (57%) or capecitabine monotherapy (40%) (average duration: 3.5 months). HU 3 to 18 months after diagnosis (potential ACT period + 12 months follow‐up) was compared between patients treated with and without ACT using a mixed model adjusted for age, sex and education level. Subsequently, the CIPN sensory, motor and autonomy scales, measured using the EORTC QLQ‐CIPN20, were independently included in the model to evaluate the impact of neuropathy. Using a mixed model, a significant difference of −0.039 (95% confidence interval: −0.062; −0.015) in HU was found between patients treated with and without ACT. Including the CIPN sensory, motor and autonomy scales decreased the difference with 0.019, 0.015 and 0.02, respectively. HU 3 to 18 months after diagnosis is significantly lower in patients treated with ACT vs without ACT. This difference is on the boundary of clinical relevance and appears to be partly related to the sensory and motor neuropathy‐related side effects of ACT.

What's new?

Given its potentially serious side effects, patient quality of life should be included in clinical decision‐making regarding the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II/III colon cancer. Using a mixed model which was corrected for relevant covariates, here the authors found a statistically‐significant but small decrease in HU of −0.039 during chemotherapy and the following 12 months for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy compared to patients without adjuvant chemotherapy. The decrease in HU, which is on the boundary of clinical relevance, appears to be partly related to sensory and motor neuropathy side effects of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Cluster randomized controlled trial of volitional and motivational interventions to improve bowel cancer screening uptake: A population-level study

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although effective uptake of bowel cancer screening is below 60% in England. This trial investigated the influence of volitional and motivational interventions and their combination on increasing guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) screening uptake.

METHOD

In total, 34,633 participants were recruited (via North-East of England bowel cancer screening hub) into a 2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. Social norm-based motivational intervention (SNA); Implementation intention-based Volitional Help Sheet (VHS); Combined intervention (SNA+VHS); Treatment as usual control. Screening rate (gFOBT kit return rate within 8 weeks of invitation) was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Screening kits were returned by 60% of participants (N=20,847/34,633). A substantial imbalance was observed in participant characteristics, participants in the combined intervention group were younger and more likely to be first time invitees. Adjusted analyses found insufficient evidence that any of the interventions were different to control (Combined: OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.97-1.44; SNA alone: OR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.15; VHS alone OR= 0.88; 95% CI: 0.75-1.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant beneficial effect of the combined intervention in the youngest age group compared to control (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.05-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not support any benefit of either VHS or SNA interventions alone on bowel cancer screening uptake. The combined SNA+VHS intervention was significantly different from control only in the youngest age group in adjusted analyses. However, the magnitude of effect in the youngest age group suggests that further testing of VHS plus SNA interventions in carefully targeted populations may be warranted.

Cost of Increasing Years-of-Life-Gained (YLG) Using Fecal Immunochemical Testing as a Population-Level Screening Model in a Rural Appalachian Population

PURPOSE

Given the innovation of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to detect polyps in the rectum and colon for removal by colonoscopy, it is important to determine the cost per Life-Year Gained (LYG) when using FIT as a population-level screening model. This is particularly true for medically underserved rural populations. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to make this determination among rural Appalachians experiencing isolation and economic challenges.

METHODS

The study occurred in an 8-county area of southeastern Kentucky. Kits were distributed to 1,424 residents. Seven hundred thirty-two kits (51.4%) were completed and returned. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using PrecisionTree 7.6.

FINDINGS

Reactive test results occurred for 144 of the completed kits (19.7%). Thirty-seven colonoscopies were verified, with 15 of these indicating precancerous changes or actual cancer. Program costs were estimated at $461,952, with the average cost per person screened estimated at $324. Cost per LYG was $7,912.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to an average cost per LYG of $17,200, our findings suggest a highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for this population of medically underserved rural residents. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that the screening program begins to yield positive net benefits at the stage when project recipients undergo colonoscopy, suggesting that this is the key step for behavioral intervention and intensified outreach.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program

BACKGROUND

A nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT.

CONCLUSION

FIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.

Model-based evaluation of the cost effectiveness of 3 versus 6 months' adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk stage II colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 3 months' adjuvant chemotherapy versus 6 months in high-risk (T4 stage + microsatellite stable) stage II colon cancer (CC) patients.

METHODS

Using the validated PATTERN Markov cohort model, which simulates the disease progression of stage II CC patients from diagnosis to death, we first evaluated a reference strategy in which high-risk patients were treated with chemotherapy for 6 months. In the second strategy, treatment duration was shortened to 3 months. Both strategies were evaluated for CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin). Based on trial data, we assumed that shortened treatment duration compared with a 6-month regimen was equally effective for CAPOX and less effective for FOLFOX. Adverse events were highest in the 6-month strategy. Analyses were conducted from a societal perspective using a lifelong time horizon. Outcomes were number of CC deaths per 1000 patients and total discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (pp). Incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY.

RESULTS

For CAPOX, the 6-month strategy resulted in 316 CC deaths per 1000 patients, 6.71 QALYs pp and total costs of €41,257 pp. The 3-month strategy resulted in an equal number of CC deaths, but higher QALYs (6.80 pp) and lower costs (€37,645 pp), leading to a iNMB of €8454 per person for 3 months versus 6 months. For FOLFOX, the 6-month strategy resulted in 316 CC deaths per 1000 patients, 6.71 QALYs pp and total costs of €47,135 pp. The 3-month strategy resulted in more CC deaths (393), lower QALYs (6.19 pp) and lower costs (€44,389 pp). An iNMB of -€23,189 was found for 3 months versus 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that 3 months' adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered as standard of care in high-risk stage II CC patients for CAPOX, but not for FOLFOX.

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance with CT colonography after resection of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Surveillance following colorectal cancer (CRC) resection uses optical colonoscopy (OC) to detect intraluminal disease and CT to detect extracolonic recurrence. CT colonography (CTC) might be an efficient use of resources in this situation because it allows for intraluminal and extraluminal evaluations with one test.

DESIGN

We developed a simulation model to compare lifetime costs and benefits for a cohort of patients with resected CRC. Standard of care involved annual CT for 3 years and OC for years 1, 4 and every 5 years thereafter. For the CTC-based strategy, we replace CT+OC at year 1 with CTC. Patients with lesions greater than 6 mm detected by CTC underwent OC. Detection of an adenoma 10 mm or larger was followed by OC at 1 year, then every 3 years thereafter. Test characteristics and costs for CTC were derived from a clinical study. Medicare costs were used for cancer care costs as well as alternative test costs. We discounted costs and effects at 3% per year.

RESULTS

For persons with resected stage III CRC, the standard-of-care strategy was more costly (US$293) and effective (2.6 averted CRC cases and 1.1 averted cancer deaths per 1000) than the CTC-based strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$55 500 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Our analysis was most sensitive to the sensitivity of CTC for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger and assumptions about disease progression.

CONCLUSION

In a simulation model, we found that replacing the standard-of-care approach to postdiagnostic surveillance with a CTC-based strategy is not an efficient use of resources in most situations.

Nonoperative Management Versus Radical Surgery of Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy-Induced Clinical Complete Response: A Markov Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management of rectal cancer was introduced for patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to avoid short- and long-term surgical morbidity related to radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the expected life-years and quality-adjusted life-years for nonoperative management and radical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer after clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

DESIGN

Markov modeling was used to simulate nonoperative management and radical surgery for a base case scenario over a 10-year time horizon. Estimates for various clinical variables were obtained after extensive literature search. Outcome was expressed in both life-years and quality-adjusted life-years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were completed to assess the impact of variation in key parameters.

SETTING

A decision model using a Markov model was designed.

PATIENTS

The base case was a 65-year-old man with a distal rectal tumor who had achieved clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Life-years and quality-adjusted life-years were measured.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted life-years (5.79 for nonoperative management vs 5.62 for radical surgery) and life-years (6.92 for nonoperative management vs 6.96 for radical surgery) were similar between nonoperative management and radical surgery. The preferred treatment strategy changed with variations in the probability of local regrowth in nonoperative management, the probability of salvage surgery for regrowth in nonoperative management, utilities associated with nonoperative management and low anterior resection, and the utility of low anterior resection syndrome. The model was not sensitive to (dis)utilities associated with stoma, chemotherapy, or postoperative morbidity and mortality.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by assumptions inherent to modeling studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management and radical surgery resulted in similar (quality-adjusted) life-years. Nonoperative management should therefore be considered as a reasonable treatment option. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B246. MANEJO NO-QUIRÚRGICO VERSUS CIRUGÍA RADICAL DEL CÁNCER RECTAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESPUESTA CLÍNICA COMPLETA INDUCIDA POR TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ANÁLISIS DE DECISIÓN DE MARKOV: Se introdujo el tratamiento no quirúrgico del cáncer rectal para pacientes con respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante para evitar la morbilidad quirúrgica a corto y largo plazo relacionada con la resección radical.Determinar los años de vida esperados y los años de vida ajustados por calidad para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico y la resección radical del cáncer rectal localmente avanzado, después de la respuesta clínica completa siguiente de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.El modelo de Markov se usó para simular el manejo no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical para un escenario de caso base en un horizonte temporal de 10 años. Se obtuvieron estimaciones para diversas variables clínicas después de una extensa búsqueda bibliográfica. El resultado se expresó tanto en años de vida como en años de vida ajustados por calidad. Se completaron análisis determinísticos de sensibilidad para evaluar el impacto de la variación en los parámetros clave.Se diseñó un modelo de decisión utilizando un modelo de Markov.El caso base fue un hombre de 65 años con un tumor rectal distal que había logrado una respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.Años de vida y años de vida ajustados por calidad.Los años de vida ajustados por calidad (5.79 para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico frente a 5.62 para la cirugía radical) y los años de vida (6.92 para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico frente a 6.96 para la cirugía radical) fueron similares entre el tratamiento no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical. La estrategia de tratamiento preferida cambió con las variaciones en la probabilidad de nuevo crecimiento local en el manejo no-operatorio, la probabilidad de cirugía de rescate para el rebrote en el manejo no-operatorio, las utilidades asociadas con el manejo no-operatorio, y la resección anterior baja y la utilidad de el syndrome de resección anterior baja. El modelo no era sensible a las (des) utilidades asociadas con el estoma, la quimioterapia o la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.El estudio estuvo limitado por suposiciones inherentes a los estudios de modelado.El manejo no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical resultaron en años de vida similares (ajustados por calidad). Por lo tanto, el tratamiento no-quirúrgico debe considerarse como una opción de tratamiento razonable. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B246.

Can a biomarker triage test reduce colonoscopy burden in fecal immunochemical test screening?

Aim: To assess the potential of biomarker triage testing (BM-TT) in the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Materials & methods: Using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model, we simulated fecal immunochemical test (FIT)₄₇-screening and various FIT plus BM-TT screening scenarios in which only individuals with both a positive FIT and BM-TT are referred to colonoscopy. Results: Adding a low polyp sensitivity BM-TT to FIT-screening reduced colonoscopy burden (89-100%) while increasing CRC mortality (27-41%) compared with FIT₄₇-screening only. The FIT plus high polyp sensitivity BM-TT scenarios also decreased colonoscopy burden (71-89%) while hardly affecting CRC mortality (FIT₄₇ 0-4% increase, FIT₁₅ 2-7% decrease). Conclusion: Adding a BM-TT to FIT-screening considerably reduces colonoscopy burden, but could also decrease screening effectiveness. Combining FIT₁₅ with a high polyp sensitivity BM-TT seems most promising.

Cost-utility analysis of genetic polymorphism universal screening in colorectal cancer prevention by detection of high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

In the past 15 years numerous studies have been published on the involvement of low-penetrance susceptibility genes on the risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIM

To perform an economic analysis of blood genetic testing in CRC screening in a population-based nationwide setting using polymorphisms in prostaglandin E₂ pathway genes as proof of concept.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed from a societal perspective in Portugal comparing two strategies: blood genetic testing by the age of 40 versus no genetic screening under different assumptions of the cost of genetic testing (€10 and €30) and expected risk (1.5 to 5-fold). The adopted threshold was set at €44,870 (USD 50,000). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a base case scenario.

RESULTS

Polymorphism genotyping provided cost-utility only under the assumption of a 5-fold increased risk in the general population, providing ICERs of €44,356 and €30,389 for €30 and €10 tests, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Blood genetic screening for colorectal cancer has cost-utility only under specific assumptions of increased CRC risk and conservative cost estimates. Future studies should focus on defining genetic profiles because single-gene approaches are very unlikely to be cost-effective considering their modest predictive value.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand

Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs have been reported to be cost-effective in many high-income countries. However, there was no such study in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and budget impact of CRC screening modalities for average-risk persons in Thailand.Methods: A decision tree coupled with a Markov model was used to estimate lifetime costs and health benefits of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy using a societal perspective. The input parameters were obtained from a CRC screening project at a Thai tertiary care hospital, Thai health care costs and databases, and systematic literature review. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2017 US Dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty. Finally, budget impact analysis was conducted.Results: At the Thai ceiling threshold of societal willingness-to-pay of 4,706 USD, the screening colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT, starting at age 50, was cost-effective, as compared to no screening resulting in 15.09 and 15.00 QALYs with the ICERs of 600.20 and 509.84 USD/QALY gained, respectively. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT could prevent 17.9% and 5.7% of early stage cancer and 27.8% and 9.2% of late stage cancer per 100,000 screening over lifetime when compared to no screening, respectively. The colonoscopy screening was cost-effective with the ICER of 646.53 USD/QALY gained when compared to FIT. The probabilities of being cost-effective for the colonoscopy and FIT were 75% and 25%, respectively. Budget impact analysis showed the colonoscopy screening required an 8-times higher budget than FIT.Conclusions: Colonoscopy offers the best value for money of CRC screenings in Thailand. Annual FIT is potentially feasible since it requires less resources. Our findings can be used as part of evidence for informing policy decision making.Key points for decision makersThere was a lack of cost-effective study of colorectal cancer screening programs in low- and middle-income countries.This study evaluated lifetime health outcomes and costs, and the cost-effectiveness of colorectal screening options for average-risk persons in Thailand.Colonoscopy screening every 10 years is cost-effective with high probability of being cost-effective as compared with annual fecal immunochemical test.Screening by annual fecal immunochemical test is more feasible in terms of human resource and budgetary burden.Colorectal screening programs provides an opportunity for early diagnosis and treatments to prevent advance colorectal stages and avoid higher consequent costs.This study contributes a new evidence-based knowledge for Thailand and can be used to support policy decision making process.

Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening.

METHODS

Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48.

CONCLUSIONS

Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk.

IMPACT

Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk: Current Status and Future Potential

Background

Although uniform colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, risk-based screening may be more efficient. We investigated whether CRC screening based on polygenic risk is a cost-effective alternative to current uniform screening, and if not, under what conditions it would be.

Methods

The MISCAN-Colon model was used to simulate a hypothetical cohort of US 40-year-olds. Uniform screening was modeled as colonoscopy screening at ages 50, 60, and 70 years. For risk-stratified screening, individuals underwent polygenic testing with current and potential future discriminatory performance (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC] of 0.60 and 0.65–0.80, respectively). Polygenic testing results were used to create risk groups, for which colonoscopy screening was optimized by varying the start age (40–60 years), end age (70–85 years), and interval (1–20 years).

Results

With current discriminatory performance, optimal screening ranged from once-only colonoscopy at age 60 years for the lowest-risk group to six colonoscopies at ages 40–80 years for the highest-risk group. While maintaining the same health benefits, risk-stratified screening increased costs by $59 per person. Risk-stratified screening could become cost-effective if the AUC value would increase beyond 0.65, the price per polygenic test would drop to less than $141, or risk-stratified screening would lead to a 5% increase in screening participation.

Conclusions

Currently, CRC screening based on polygenic risk is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with uniform screening. This is expected to change with a greater than 0.05 increase in AUC value, a greater than 30% reduction in polygenic testing costs, or a greater than 5% increase in adherence with screening.

Health Utility Book (HUB)-Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review of Health State Utility Values in Cancer

Background. Treatment options in oncology are rapidly advancing, and public payer systems are increasingly under pressure to adopt new but expensive cancer treatments. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are used to estimate the relative costs and effects of competing interventions, where health outcomes are measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to reflect health-related quality of life or health status in the calculation of QALYs. To support reimbursement agencies in the appraisal of oncology drug submissions, which typically include a CUA component, we have proposed a systematic literature review of published HSUV estimates in the field of oncology. Methods. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and CINAHL. A team of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, will evaluate abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility against broad inclusion criteria. Studies using a direct, indirect, or combination approach to eliciting preferences related to cancer or cancer treatments are eligible. Data extraction will capture details of study methodology, participants, health states, and corresponding HSUVs. We will summarize our findings with descriptive analyses at this stage. A pilot review in thyroid cancer is presented to illustrate the proposed methods. Discussion. This systematic review will generate a comprehensive summary of the oncology HSUV literature. As a component of the Health Utility Book (HUB) project, we anticipate that this work will assist both health economic modelers as well as critical reviewers in the development and appraisal of CUAs in oncology.

Cost-effectiveness of adding Endocuff® to standard colonoscopies for interval colorectal cancer screening

Background and aims: Higher screening colonoscopy adenoma detection rates (ADRs) correlate with reduced risk of interval colorectal cancer (CRC). The Endocuff® device has been shown to improve ADRs compared to standard colonoscopy (SC). This cost-effectiveness analysis compared interval CRC screening using Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs SC. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model followed patients through screening, CRC diagnosis, progression, remission, and death. ADRs, CRC progression, and utilities were from literature. CRC incidence, stage distribution, and mortality were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and SEER-Medicare linked databases. Screening and annual patient costs were from public databases and literature. Endocuff® device average sales price was applied. Lifetime device and medical costs were evaluated separately for device purchaser, health plan, and accountable care organization (ACO) perspectives. Results: Consistent use of EC instead of SC was expected to reduce lifetime risks of interval CRC and related death by 0.98% and 0.19%, respectively, preventing one case per 102 patients and one death per 526 patients. Survival and quality-of-life (QoL) improved by 0.025 life-years and 0.011 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient on average. EC instead of SC led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to the device purchaser of $4,421 per life-year gained and $9,843 per QALY gained, and $199 or $87 average cost-savings per patient to the health plan or ACO, respectively. Conclusion: Endocuff® for screening colonoscopies was expected to reduce interval CRC incidence and death, improve QoL, and be cost-effective to the device purchaser and cost-saving to a health plan or ACO.

Cost-effectiveness of Short-Course Radiation Therapy vs Long-Course Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Although both short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have been practiced in parallel for more than 15 years, no cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these 2 approaches in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has been published.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used a cost-effectiveness model simulating 10-year outcomes for 1 million hypothetical patients aged 65 years with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with either short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery and chemotherapy. Utilities and probabilities from the literature and costs from the Healthcare Bluebook and Medicare fee schedules were used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. It was assumed that long-course chemoradiotherapy would result in higher rates of low anterior resection (LAR). To model preference-sensitive care, a 2-way sensitivity analysis was conducted in which the utilities of the no-evidence-of-disease (NED) states with LAR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were simultaneously varied. The analysis was repeated for patients with distal rectal tumors. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2018.

EXPOSURES

Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $133 495 per quality-adjusted life-year). Two-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost-effective approach for a given patient depended on the utilities for the NED-LAR and NED-APR states. Assuming that a greater proportion of patients with locally advanced distal tumors undergoing long-course chemoradiotherapy (39%) would proceed to LAR compared with those treated with short-course radiotherapy (19%), long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $61 123 per quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy was sensitive to the utilities of the NED-LAR and NED-APR health states, highlighting the importance of care that is sensitive to patient preference. Long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach for patients with distal tumors.

Active Surveillance Versus Nephron-Sparing Surgery for a Bosniak IIF or III Renal Cyst: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance (AS) versus nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were developed to estimate life expectancy and lifetime costs for 60-year-old patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst (the reference cases) managed by AS versus NSS. The models incorporated the malignancy rates, reclassification rates during follow-up, treatment effectiveness, complications and costs, and short- and long-term outcomes. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to identify management preference under an assumed $75,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) societal willingness-to-pay threshold, using data from studies in the literature and the 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The effects of key parameters were addressed in a multiway sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of malignancy for Bosniak IIF and III renal cysts was 26% (25/96) and 52% (542/1046). Under base case assumptions for Bosniak IIF cysts, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NSS relative to AS was $731,309 per QALY for women, exceeding the assumed societal willingness-to-pay threshold, and AS outperformed NSS for both life expectancy and cost for men. For Bosniak III cysts, AS yielded greater life expectancy (24.8 and 19.4 more days) and lower lifetime costs (cost difference of $12,128 and $11,901) than NSS for men and women, indicating dominance of AS over NSS. Superiority of AS held true in sensitivity analyses for men 46 years old or older and women 57 years old or older even when all parameters were set to favor NSS.

CONCLUSION

AS is more cost-effective than NSS for patients with a Bosniak IIF or III renal cyst.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Cost-utility analysis of colonoscopy or faecal immunochemical test for population-based organised colorectal cancer screening

Background

Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe.

Methods

We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50-74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results

Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy.

Conclusion

Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluations of Oral Anticancer Agents: Systematic Review of Characteristics, Methodological Trends, and Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs).

METHODS

The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation.

RESULTS

Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.

Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in UK women and can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early stages. Risk-scoring can help to guide referral to specialist centres.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of risk scores to guide referral decisions for women with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care.

METHODS

Twenty-one databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to November 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. The meta-analysis using weighted averages and random-effects modelling was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cost-effectiveness analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different risk-scoring methods, and subsequent care pathways. Modelling comprised a decision tree and a Markov model. The decision tree was used to model short-term outcomes and the Markov model was used to estimate the long-term costs and QALYs associated with treatment and progression.

RESULTS

Fifty-one diagnostic cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score did not offer any advantage over the Risk of Malignancy Index 1 (RMI 1). Patients with borderline tumours or non-ovarian primaries appeared to account for disproportionately high numbers of false-negative, low-risk ROMA scores. (Confidential information has been removed.) To achieve similar levels of sensitivity to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group's simple ultrasound rules, a very low RMI 1 decision threshold (25) would be needed; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the RMI 1 at this threshold were 94.9% (95% CI 91.5% to 97.2%) and 51.1% (95% CI 47.0% to 55.2%), respectively. In the base-case analysis, RMI 1 (threshold of 250) was the least effective [16.926 life-years (LYs), 13.820 QALYs] and the second cheapest (£5669). The IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules (inconclusive, assumed to be malignant) were the cheapest (£5667) and the second most effective [16.954 LYs, 13.841 QALYs], dominating RMI 1. The ADNEX model (threshold of 10%), costing £5699, was the most effective (16.957 LYs, 13.843 QALYs), and compared with the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules, resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15,304 per QALY gained. At thresholds of up to £15,304 per QALY gained, the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules are cost-effective; the ADNEX model (threshold of 10%) is cost-effective for higher thresholds.

LIMITATIONS

Information on the downstream clinical consequences of risk-scoring was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ADNEX model and the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules may offer increased sensitivity relative to current practice (RMI 1); that is, more women with malignant tumours would be referred to a specialist multidisciplinary team, although more women with benign tumours would also be referred. The cost-effectiveness model supports prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity. Further research is needed on the clinical consequences of risk-scoring.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016053326.

FUNDING DETAILS

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-utility analysis of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine for adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

Adjuvant chemotherapy at concurrent time with radiation therapy (RT) or at adjuvant time alone in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used with several regimens. The cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare administration of two 5-FU regimens and capecitabine in the aspect of provider and societal viewpoint.

Methods

Stage II or III rectal cancer patients who received pre-operative or post-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were compared by using decision tree model between (I) 5-FU plus leucovorin (LV) for 5 days per cycle (Mayo Clinic regimen); (II) 5-FU continuous infusion (CI) for 120-h per cycle (CAO/ARO/AIO-94 protocol); (III) standard regimen of capecitabine. All probability data were extracted from landmark study. Direct medical costs were the cost from database of Drug Medical Supply Information Center, while direct non-medical cost and utility were interviewed from stage II and III rectal cancer patients. The time horizon of this study was 5 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the final result in this study, which determined as the numerator of the difference of costs among three drug regimens, and the difference of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from each drug was the denominator.

Results

5-FU plus LV was the cheapest and least efficacy for adjuvant treatment of LARC in both provider and societal viewpoint. In provider viewpoint, the ICERs of 5-FU CI and capecitabine were 334,550 THB/QALY (US $9,840/QALY) and 189,935 THB/QALY (US $5,586/QALY), respectively, with the corresponding societal viewpoint of 264,447 THB/QALY (US $7,778/QALY) and 119,120 THB/QALY (US $3,504/QALY) when 5-FU plus LV was used as comparator. The most influential parameter for value of treatment was acquisition cost of capecitabine. At the willingness to pay for one QALY gained in Thailand (160,000 THB or US $4,706), 5-FU plus LV, 5-FU CI and capecitabine had probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 63%, 2% and 35%, respectively.

Conclusions

Capecitabine was the most expensive regimen but produced the higher effectiveness than 5-FU plus LV and 5-FU CI. The most influential parameter in the model was acquisition cost of capecitabine.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is associated with high mortality when detected at a later stage. There is a paucity of studies from low and middle income countries to support the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening compared to no screening in Ukraine, a lower-middle income country.

Methods

We developed a deterministic Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three colorectal cancer screening strategies [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FOBT every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years] compared to no screening. We modeled outcomes in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime time horizon. We performed sensitivity analyses on treatment adherence, test characteristics and costs. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.

Results

The base-case lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis showed that all three screening strategies were cost saving compared to no screening, and among the three strategies, colonoscopy every 10 years was the dominant strategy compared to no screening with standard adherence to treatment. When decreased adherence to treatment was modeled, colonoscopy every 10 years was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $843 per QALY compared with no screening.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that colorectal cancer screening can save money and improve health compared to no screening in Ukraine. Colonoscopy every 10 years is superior to the other screening modalities evaluated in this study. This knowledge can be used to concentrate efforts on developing a national screening program in Ukraine.

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.

Health State Utility Values for Ileostomies and Colostomies: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ileostomies and colostomies may affect the quality of life of patients after colorectal surgery; however, the impact has been difficult to quantify using questionnaire-based measures. Utilities reflect patient preferences for health states and provide an alternate method of quality of life assessment. We aimed to systematically review the literature on utilities for ileostomy and colostomy health states.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (to August 16, 2017) to identify studies reporting utilities for colostomies or ileostomies using direct or indirect, preference-based elicitation tools. We categorized utilities based on elicitation group (patients with stoma, patients without stoma, healthcare providers, general population) and tool. We pooled utilities using random effects models to determine mean utilities for each elicitation group and tool.

RESULTS

We identified ten studies reporting colostomy utilities and three studies reporting ileostomy utilities. Utilities were most commonly obtained using direct elicitation measures administered to individuals with an understanding of the health state. Patients with stomas and providers gave high utility ratings for the colostomy state (range 0.88-0.92 and 0.86-0.92, respectively, using direct elicitation tools). Ileostomy utilities obtained from patients following surgery and from providers also demonstrated high values placed on the ileostomy health state (range 0.88-1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Following stoma surgery, values placed on quality of life are similar to those obtained from patients with conditions such as asthma and allergies or individuals of similar age without chronic conditions. This confirms the findings of questionnaire-based studies, which report minimal long-term decrements to overall quality of life among stomates.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of a colorectal cancer screening programme in a high adenoma prevalence scenario using MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model

Background

The Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme began in 2009 and the implementation has been complete since 2013. Faecal immunological testing was used for screening in individuals between 50 and 69 years old. Colorectal Cancer in Basque country is characterized by unusual epidemiological features given that Colorectal Cancer incidence is similar to other European countries while adenoma prevalence is higher. The object of our study was to economically evaluate the programme via cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses with microsimulation models.

Methods

We applied the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN)-Colon model to predict trends in Colorectal Cancer incidence and mortality and to quantify the short- and long-term effects and costs of the Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme. The model was calibrated to the Basque demographics in 2008 and age-specific Colorectal Cancer incidence data in the Basque Cancer Registry from 2005 to 2008 before the screening begun. The model was also calibrated to the high adenoma prevalence observed for the Basque population in a previously published study. The multi-cohort approach used in the model included all the cohorts in the programme during 30 years of implementation, with lifetime follow-up. Unit costs were obtained from the Basque Health Service and both cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were carried out.

Results

The goodness-of-fit of the model adaptation to observed programme data was evidence of validation. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the savings from treatment were larger than the added costs due to screening. Thus, the Basque programme was dominant compared to no screening, as life expectancy increased by 29.3 days per person. The savings in the budget analysis appeared 10 years after the complete implementation of the programme. The average annual budget was €73.4 million from year 2023 onwards.

Conclusions

This economic evaluation showed a screening intervention with a major health gain that also produced net savings when a long follow-up was used to capture the late economic benefit. The number of colonoscopies required was high but remain within the capacity of the Basque Health Service. So far in Europe, no other population Colorectal Cancer screening programme has been evaluated by budget impact analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4362-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals.

METHODS

We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG.

RESULTS

Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test.

CONCLUSIONS

By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.