Evidence to support colonoscopic screening is insufficient

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening is now standard practice in most developed countries. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, with annual fecal occult blood testing, in renal transplant recipients.

METHOD

A Markov model was developed to compare the effects of annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) as screening for colorectal cancer in a cohort of renal transplant recipients ages 50-70 years, versus no screening. Data on cancer risk and survival were obtained from the ANZDATA Registry. Accuracy of FOBT, cancer stage distribution of the screened and unscreened arms, and adverse effects of colonoscopy were extrapolated from general population data because of unavailability of equivalent data in renal transplant recipients.

RESULTS

When the participation rate was 50%, the average cost for annual FOBT was $5076. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $22,309 per life year saved. Using a series of sensitivity analyses, the choice of screening strategy was most sensitive to the prevalence of disease, test specificities, and participation rate. When the base-case analyses were tested over the worst and best-case scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $32,863 to $95,668 per life year saved.

CONCLUSION

Under the most favorable conditions, immunochemical FOBT screening in renal transplant recipients appears good value for money. Uncertainties, however, exist in the model's influential estimates. Primary research into these uncertainties is necessary to confirm whether population colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective in renal transplant population.

Impact of national guidelines about the management of colorectal cancer on Australian surgeons' awareness of evidence: a pre/post survey

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the immediate impact of national evidence-based guidelines about colorectal cancer on Australian surgeons' self-reported practice and their deficits in awareness of scientific evidence underpinning clinical management practices.

DESIGN

Pre/post evaluation, comprising preguidelines survey (November 1998) and postguidelines survey (February 2001).

METHODS

One hundred and fourteen Australian surgeons returned postguidelines surveys, of whom 103 (90%) agreed to matching of their pre- and postguidelines responses. National distribution of the CRC guidelines occurred in November 1999. Over the ensuing year, dissemination strategies included seminars, presentations at conferences and journal articles. The main outcome measures used were changes in awareness of evidence for each of 23 clinical recommendations, changes in overall awareness score (maximum possible 23), changes in subscore for nine items for which evidence was compelling and predictors of change.

RESULTS

Of those surgeons followed up, 95% were aware of the guidelines and 32% had read them in detail. Only 47% recalled the consumer version. The three most highly rated topics in the guidelines were: high-risk familial syndromes (45%); screening based on family history of colorectal cancer (40%); population screening for colorectal cancer (25%). Compared with baseline, there was a modest improvement in the mean overall awareness score (P = 0.02). Paired analyses of awareness of the evidence for each of 23 individual topics revealed significant improvement only in five. For two, awareness significantly decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pre/post findings are not inconsistent with the expectation that dissemination of the CRC guidelines has had some short-term impact. However, definitive evidence acquired through more rigorously designed controlled trials will be needed to determine first, whether surgical practice has changed and, second, whether implementation of the CRC guidelines or some other secular event caused such change.