Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening

INTRODUCTION

Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data.

METHODS

The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial.

RESULTS

Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon.

DISCUSSION

Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened

Importance

Despite recommendations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 60%. Liquid biopsy tests are in development for cancer early detection, but it is unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liquid biopsy, liquid biopsy following nonadherence to colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test. Adherence to first-line screening with colonoscopy, stool DNA, or fecal immunochemical test was assumed to be 60.6%, and adherence for liquid biopsy was assumed to be 100%. For colonoscopy, stool DNA, and fecal immunochemical test, patients who did not adhere to testing were not offered other screening. In colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid, liquid biopsy was second-line screening for those who deferred colonoscopy. Scenario analyses were performed to include the possibility of polyp detection for liquid biopsy.

Exposures

No screening, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA, liquid biopsy, and colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Model outcomes included life expectancy, total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained.

Results

This study used a simulated cohort of patients aged 45 years with average risk of colorectal cancer. In the base case, colonoscopy was the preferred, or cost-effective, strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28 071 per life-year gained. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had the greatest gain in life-years gained but had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $377 538. Colonoscopy-liquid biopsy hybrid had a greater gain in life-years if liquid biopsy could detect polyps but remained too costly.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, and the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a first- or second-line screening strategy was not cost-effective at its current cost and screening performance. Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if their cost is substantially lowered.

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.

Is there a place for sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening? A systematic review and critical appraisal of cost-effectiveness models

INTRODUCTION

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.

The Use of a Non-Invasive Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Modeling Study

This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of fecal biomarker M3 panel compared to fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy in an Asian population. In a hypothetical population of 100,000 persons aged 50 years who received FIT yearly, M3 biomarker yearly, or colonoscopy every 10 years until the age of 75 years. Participants with positive FOBT or a result of "high risk" identified using the M3 biomarker are offered colonoscopy. We assumed surveillance colonoscopy is repeated every 3 years, and examined the treatment cost. A comparison of various outcome measures was conducted using Markov modelling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FIT, M3 biomarker, and colonoscopy was USD108,176, USD133,485 and USD159,596, respectively. Comparing with FIT, the use of M3 biomarker could lead to significantly smaller total loss of cancer-related life-years (2783 vs. 5279); a higher number of CRC cases prevented (1622 vs. 146), a higher proportion of CRC cases prevented (50.2% vs. 4.5%), more life-years saved (2852 vs. 339), and cheaper total costs per life-year saved (USD212,553 vs. 773,894). The total costs per life-year saved is more affordable than that achieved by colonoscopy as a primary screening tool (USD212,553 vs. USD236,909). The findings show that M3 biomarkers may be more cost-effective than colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy Needs for Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Ukraine

BACKGROUND

In Ukraine, there is no established colorectal cancer screening program. We aimed to project the number of screening colonoscopies needed for implementation of various CRC screening strategies in Ukraine.

METHODS

We modified a previously developed Markov microsimulation model to reflect the natural history of adenoma and CRC progression among average-risk 50-74-year-olds. We simulated colonoscopies needed for the following screening strategies: no screening, fecal occult blood test yearly, FOBT yearly with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, FS every 5 years, fecal immunohistochemistry test (FIT) yearly, or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming 80% screening adherence, we estimated colonoscopies required at 1 and 5 years depending on the implementation rate. In one-way sensitivity analyses, we varied implementation rate, screening adherence, sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

Assuming an 80% screening adherence and complete implementation (100%), besides a no screening strategy, the fewest screening colonoscopies are needed with an FOBT program, requiring on average 6,600 and 26,800 colonoscopies per 100,000 persons at 1 and 5 years post-implementation, respectively. The most screening colonoscopies are required with a colonoscopy program, requiring on average 76,600 and 101,000 colonoscopies per 100,000 persons at 1 and 5 years post-implementation, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the biggest driver of number of colonoscopies needed was screening adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of colonoscopies needed and therefore the potential strain on the healthcare system vary substantially by screening test. These findings can provide valuable information for stakeholders on equipment needs when implementing a national screening program in Ukraine.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n = 40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

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.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018-2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests - clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse - some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use - perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost. In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

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.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

METHODS

The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG.

RESULTS

Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

Validation of Colorectal Cancer Models on Long-term Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Microsimulation models are often used to predict long-term outcomes and guide policy decisions regarding cancer screening. The United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening (UKFSS) Trial examines a one-time intervention of flexible sigmoidoscopy that was implemented before a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was established. Long-term study outcomes, now a full 17 y following randomization, have been published. We use the outcomes from this trial to validate 3 microsimulation models for CRC to long-term study outcomes. We find that 2 of 3 models accurately predict the relative effect of screening (the hazard ratios) on CRC-specific incidence 17 y after screening. We find that all 3 models yield predictions of the relative effect of screening on CRC incidence and mortality (i.e., the hazard ratios) that are reasonably close to the UKFSS results. Two of the 3 models accurately predict the relative reduction in CRC incidence 17 y after screening. One model accurately predicted the absolute incidence and mortality rates in the screened group. The models differ in their estimates related to adenoma detection at screening. Although high-quality screening results help to inform models, trials are expensive, last many years, and can be complicated by ethical issues and technological changes across the duration of the trial. Thus, well-calibrated and validated models are necessary to predict outcomes for which data are not available. The results from this validation demonstrate the utility of models in predicting long-term outcomes and in collaborative modeling to account for uncertainty.

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.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

Cost-effectiveness of a multitarget stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening of Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began covering a multitarget stool DNA (mtSDNA) test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of Medicare beneficiaries. In this study, we evaluated whether mtSDNA testing is a cost-effective alternative to other CRC screening strategies reimbursed by CMS, and if not, under what conditions it could be.

METHODS

We use three independently-developed microsimulation models to simulate a cohort of previously unscreened US 65-year-olds who are screened with triennial mtSDNA testing, or one of six other reimbursed screening strategies. Main outcome measures are discounted life-years gained (LYG) and lifetime costs (CMS perspective), threshold reimbursement rates, and threshold adherence rates. Outcomes are expressed as the median and range across models.

RESULTS

Compared to no screening, triennial mtSDNA screening resulted in 82 (range: 79-88) LYG per 1,000 simulated individuals. This was more than for five-yearly sigmoidoscopy (80 (range: 71-89) LYG), but fewer than for every other simulated strategy. At its 2017 reimbursement rate of $512, mtSDNA was the most costly strategy, and even if adherence were 30% higher than with other strategies, it would not be a cost-effective alternative. At a substantially reduced reimbursement rate ($6-18), two models found that triennial mtSDNA testing was an efficient and potentially cost-effective screening option.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to no screening, triennial mtSDNA screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality at acceptable costs. However, compared to nearly all other CRC screening strategies reimbursed by CMS it is less effective and considerably more costly, making it an inefficient screening option.

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide up-to-date evidence of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by answering 3 research questions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science), EconLit (American Economic Association) and 3 supplemental databases for original articles published in English from January 2010 through December 2017. All monetary values were converted to US dollars (year 2016). For all research questions, we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs and life years (LYs) and/or quality-adjusted LYs, as well as the incremental costs per LY gained or quality-adjusted LY gained compared with the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy was defined as one that was less costly and equally or more effective than the baseline strategy. The net monetary benefit approach was used to answer research question 2.

RESULTS

Our review comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America, 4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost effective (even cost saving in most US models) compared to no screening. In addition, colonoscopy every 10 years was less costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in the United States. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic colonography, every 5 or 10 years, was cost effective compared with no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In an updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic colonography continued to be cost effective compared to no screening. There were discrepancies among studies from different regions, which could be associated with the model types or model assumptions.

Fecal DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Fecal (or stool) DNA examination is a noninvasive strategy recommended by several medical professional societies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals. Fecal DNA tests assay stool for human DNA shed principally from the colon. Colonic lesions such as adenomatous and serrated polyps and cancers exfoliate cells containing neoplastically altered DNA that may be detected by sensitive assays that target specific genetic and epigenetic biomarkers to discriminate neoplastic lesions from non-neoplastic tissue. Cross-sectional validation studies confirmed initial case-control studies' assessment of performance of an optimized multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, leading to approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014. Compared to colonoscopy, mt-sDNA showed sensitivity of 92% for detection of CRC, much higher than the 74% sensitivity of another recommended noninvasive strategy, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Detections of advanced adenomas and sessile serrated polyps were higher with mt-sDNA than FIT (42% versus 24% and 42% versus 5%, respectively), but overall specificity for all lesions was lower (87% versus 95%). The mt-sDNA test increases patient life-years gained in CRC screening simulations, but its cost relative to other screening strategies needs to be reduced by 80-90% or its sensitivity for polyp detection enhanced to be cost effective. Noninvasive CRC screening strategies such as fecal DNA, however, have the potential to significantly increase national screening rates due to their noninvasive nature and convenience for patients.

Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators

Background. Microsimulation models have been extensively used in the field of cancer modeling. However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding estimates from these models, for example, overdiagnosis in prostate cancer. This is usually not thoroughly examined due to the high computational effort required. Objective. To quantify uncertainty in model outcomes due to uncertainty in model parameters, using a computationally efficient emulator (Gaussian process regression) instead of the model. Methods. We use a microsimulation model of prostate cancer (microsimulation screening analysis [MISCAN]) to simulate individual life histories. We analyze the effect of parametric uncertainty on overdiagnosis with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (ProbSAs). To minimize the number of MISCAN runs needed for ProbSAs, we emulate MISCAN, using data pairs of parameter values and outcomes to fit a Gaussian process regression model. We evaluate to what extent the emulator accurately reproduces MISCAN by computing its prediction error. Results. Using an emulator instead of MISCAN, we may reduce the computation time necessary to run a ProbSA by more than 85%. The average relative prediction error of the emulator for overdiagnosis equaled 1.7%. We predicted that 42% of screen-detected men are overdiagnosed, with an associated empirical confidence interval between 38% and 48%. Sensitivity analyses show that the accuracy of the emulator is sensitive to which model parameters are included in the training runs. Conclusions. For a computationally expensive simulation model with a large number of parameters, we show it is possible to conduct a ProbSA, within a reasonable computation time, by using a Gaussian process regression emulator instead of the original simulation model.

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.

Is methylation analysis of SFRP2, TFPI2, NDRG4, and BMP3 promoters suitable for colorectal cancer screening in the Korean population?

Background/Aims

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using stool DNA was recently found to yield good detection rates. A multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard®, Exact Sciences), including methylated genes has been recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this study was to validate these aberrantly methylated genes as stool-based DNA markers for detecting CRC and colorectal advanced adenoma (AA) in the Korean population.

Methods

A single-center study was conducted in 36 patients with AA; 35 patients with CRC; and 40 endoscopically diagnosed healthy controls using CRC screening colonoscopy. The methylation status of the SFRP2, TFPI2, NDRG4, and BMP3 promoters was investigated blindly using bisulfate-modified stool DNA obtained from 111 participants. Methylation status was investigated by methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction.

Results

Methylated SFRP2, TFPI2, NDRG4, and BMP3 promoters were detected in 60.0%, 31.4%, 68.8%, and 40.0% of CRC samples and in 27.8%, 27.8%, 27.8%, and 33.3% of AA samples, respectively. The sensitivities obtained using 4 markers to detect CRC and AA were 94.3% and 72.2%, respectively. The specificity was 55.0%.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that the SFRP2, TFPI2, NDRG4, and BMP3 promoter methylation analysis of stool sample DNA showed high sensitivity but low specificity for detecting CRC and AA. Because of the low specificity, 4 methylated markers might not be sufficient for CRC screening in the Korean population. Further large-scale studies are required to validate the methylation of these markers in the Asian population and to find new markers for the Asian population.

Recent diagnostic procedures for colorectal cancer screening: Are they cost-effective?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of death. Reduction in mortality rates in some countries worldwide are most likely ascribed to CRC screening and/or improved treatments. We reviewed the most relevant articles which discuss the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening procedures, in particular, the recent ones through the last eight years. The effectiveness of screening estimated by discounted life years gained (LYGs) compared to no screening, differed considerably between the studies. Despite these differences, all studies consistently emphasized that screening for CRC was cost-effective compared with no screening for each of the recognized screening strategies. Newer technologies for colorectal cancer screening, including computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA test, and Pillcam Colon are less invasive and accurate, however, they are not cost-effective, as their cost was higher than all other established screening strategies. When compliance and adherence to such new techniques are increased more than the established strategies they would be more cost-effective particularly CTC.

Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population

Background

A multitarget stool DNA test (MSDT) that showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for hemoglobin in one recent study from the US and Canada, is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, despite its ~20-fold higher costs compared to FITs. We aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a quantitative FIT in an independent study among participants of screening colonoscopy and to compare it with the previously reported performance of MSDT.

Methods

A total of 3494 participants, aged 50–84 years, who underwent screening colonoscopy in private gastroenterological practices in Germany, and who provided a stool sample before colonoscopy to be evaluated by a commercially available quantitative FIT (FOB Gold^®) were included. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) for detecting CRC or advanced precancerous lesions (APCLs) was evaluated by comparison of test results with findings at screening colonoscopy. In addition to the original cutoff, we used an adjusted cutoff yielding the same specificity as reported for the MSDT to enhance comparability.

Results

The most advanced finding at colonoscopy was CRC and APCL in 30 (0.86%) and 359 (10.3%) cases, respectively. At a cutoff yielding the same specificity as reported for MSDT (86.6%), the sensitivities (95% CI) of the FIT for detecting CRC and APCL >1 cm were 96.7% (82.8–99.9%) and 54.3% (48.3–60.3%), respectively. These sensitivities are higher than those reported for MSDT (92.3% and 43.6%, p=0.66 and 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion

In this large screening population, FIT showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance in comparison to reported performance of MSDT.

Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms.

METHODS

We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity.

RESULTS

Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300.

INTERPRETATION

Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

The cost of colorectal cancer according to the TNM stage

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to measure the cost of treatment of colorectal cancer in the Basque public health system according to the clinical stage.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected demographic data, clinical data and resource use of a sample of 529 patients. For stagesi toiii the initial and follow-up costs were measured. The calculation of cost for stageiv combined generalized linear models to relate the cost to the duration of follow-up based on parametric survival analysis. Unit costs were obtained from the analytical accounting system of the Basque Health Service.

RESULTS

The sample included 110 patients with stagei, 171 with stageii, 158 with stageiii and 90 with stageiv colorectal cancer. The initial total cost per patient was 8,644€ for stagei, 12,675€ for stageii and 13,034€ for stageiii. The main component was hospitalization cost. Calculated by extrapolation for stageiv mean survival was 1.27years. Its average annual cost was 22,403€, and 24,509€ to death. The total annual cost for colorectal cancer extrapolated to the whole Spanish health system was 623.9million€.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic burden of colorectal cancer is important and should be taken into account in decision-making. The combination of generalized linear models and survival analysis allows estimation of the cost of metastatic stage.

Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes.

METHODS

A Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities

Colorectal cancer screening dates to the discovery of pre-cancerous adenomatous tissue. Screening modalities and guidelines directed at prevention and early detection have evolved and resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence and mortality of colorectal cancer via direct visualization or using specific markers. Despite continued efforts and an overall reduction in deaths attributed to colorectal cancer over the last 25 years, colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of malignancy-associated deaths. In attempt to further reduce the prevalence of colorectal cancer and associated deaths, continued improvement in screening quality and adherence remains key. Noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored. Identification of specific genetic alterations in the adenoma-cancer sequence allow for the study and development of noninvasive screening modalities beyond guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing which target specific alterations or a panel of alterations. The stool DNA test is the first noninvasive screening tool that targets both human hemoglobin and specific genetic alterations. In this review we discuss stool DNA and other commercially available noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities in addition to other targets which previously have been or are currently under study.

Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Delays in diagnostic testing after a positive result from a screening test can undermine the benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but there are few empirical data on the effects of such delays. We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the consequences of time to colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

METHODS

We used an established microsimulation model to simulate an average-risk United States population cohort that underwent annual FIT screening (from ages 50 to 75 years), with follow-up colonoscopy examinations for individuals with positive results (cutoff, 20 μg/g) at different time points in the following 12 months. Main evaluated outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality; additional outcomes were total life-years lost and net costs of screening.

RESULTS

For individuals who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy within 2 weeks of a positive result from an FIT, the estimated lifetime risk of CRC incidence was 35.5/1000 persons, and mortality was 7.8/1000 persons. Every month added until colonoscopy was associated with a 0.1/1000 person increase in cancer incidence risk (an increase of 0.3%/month, compared with individuals who received colonoscopies within 2 weeks) and mortality risk (increase of 1.4%/month). Among individuals who received colonoscopy examinations 12 months after a positive result from an FIT, the incidence of CRC was 37.0/1000 persons (increase of 4%, compared with 2 weeks), and mortality was 9.1/1000 persons (increase of 16%). Total years of life gained for the entire screening cohort decreased from an estimated 93.7/1000 persons with an almost immediate follow-up colonoscopy (cost savings of $208 per patient, compared with no colonoscopy) to 84.8/1000 persons with follow-up colonoscopies at 12 months (decrease of 9%; cost savings of $100/patient, compared with no colonoscopy).

CONCLUSIONS

By using a microsimulation model of an average-risk United States screening cohort, we estimated that delays of up to 12 months after a positive result from an FIT can produce proportional losses of up to nearly 10% in overall screening benefits. These findings indicate the importance of timely follow-up colonoscopy examinations of patients with positive results from FITs.

Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity

BACKGROUND

In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need.

METHODS

The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed.

RESULTS

If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Accuracy and Implications

BACKGROUND

Microsimulation models synthesize evidence about disease processes and interventions, providing a method for predicting long-term benefits and harms of prevention, screening, and treatment strategies. Because models often require assumptions about unobservable processes, assessing a model's predictive accuracy is important.

METHODS

We validated 3 colorectal cancer (CRC) microsimulation models against outcomes from the United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening (UKFSS) Trial, a randomized controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of one-time flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to reduce CRC mortality. The models incorporate different assumptions about the time from adenoma initiation to development of preclinical and symptomatic CRC. Analyses compare model predictions to study estimates across a range of outcomes to provide insight into the accuracy of model assumptions.

RESULTS

All 3 models accurately predicted the relative reduction in CRC mortality 10 years after screening (predicted hazard ratios, with 95% percentile intervals: 0.56 [0.44, 0.71], 0.63 [0.51, 0.75], 0.68 [0.53, 0.83]; estimated with 95% confidence interval: 0.56 [0.45, 0.69]). Two models with longer average preclinical duration accurately predicted the relative reduction in 10-year CRC incidence. Two models with longer mean sojourn time accurately predicted the number of screen-detected cancers. All 3 models predicted too many proximal adenomas among patients referred to colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Model accuracy can only be established through external validation. Analyses such as these are therefore essential for any decision model. Results supported the assumptions that the average time from adenoma initiation to development of preclinical cancer is long (up to 25 years), and mean sojourn time is close to 4 years, suggesting the window for early detection and intervention by screening is relatively long. Variation in dwell time remains uncertain and could have important clinical and policy implications.

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Several screening tests are available to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. The purpose of this review was to determine how current CRC screening strategies for CRC compare with no screening and whether agreement exists with regard to the cost effectiveness of different strategies.

METHODS

Databases were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses focused on CRC screening strategies in the United States and published between May 2007 and February 2014. We analyzed the uses of fecal occult blood, fecal immunochemistry, and stool DNA tests, as well as sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy. A paired comparison of each screening strategy with no screening across each of the studies reviewed was conducted. A series of paired comparisons of the results reported in each of the studies is also included.

RESULTS

When compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies evaluated in this review were cost effective. There was disagreement as to which screening strategy was the most cost effective. However, sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal blood testing always dominated either strategy alone. Studies comparing colonoscopy with fecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or both had mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies are more cost effective. Study results disagree as to which screening strategy should be the preferred method.

Calibrating Parameters for Microsimulation Disease Models: A Review and Comparison of Different Goodness-of-Fit Criteria

BACKGROUND

Calibration (estimation of model parameters) compares model outcomes with observed outcomes and explores possible model parameter values to identify the set of values that provides the best fit to the data. The goodness-of-fit (GOF) criterion quantifies the difference between model and observed outcomes. There is no consensus on the most appropriate GOF criterion, because a direct performance comparison of GOF criteria in model calibration is lacking.

METHODS

We systematically compared the performance of commonly used GOF criteria (sum of squared errors [SSE], Pearson chi-square, and a likelihood-based approach [Poisson and/or binomial deviance functions]) in the calibration of selected parameters of the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model for colorectal cancer. The performance of each GOF criterion was assessed by comparing the 1) root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE) of the selected parameters, 2) computation time of the calibration procedure of various calibration scenarios, and 3) impact on estimated cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

The likelihood-based deviance resulted in the lowest RMSPE in 4 of 6 calibration scenarios and was close to best in the other 2. The SSE had a 25 times higher RMSPE in a scenario with considerable differences in the values of observed outcomes, whereas the Pearson chi-square had a 60 times higher RMSPE in a scenario with multiple studies measuring the same outcome. In all scenarios, the SSE required the most computation time. The likelihood-based approach estimated the cost-effectiveness ratio most accurately (up to -0.15% relative difference versus 0.44% [SSE] and 13% [Pearson chi-square]).

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood-based deviance criteria lead to accurate estimation of parameters under various circumstances. These criteria are recommended for calibration in microsimulation disease models in contrast with other commonly used criteria.

A pilot study on faecal MMP-9: a new noninvasive diagnostic marker of colorectal cancer

Background:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading malignancies worldwide, therefore cheap noninvasive screening methods are of great importance. Matrix-metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) has a role in the progression of CRC, and its level is elevated in tumour biopsies. Faecal MMP-9 levels are increased in active ulcerative colitis patients, but in CRC patients, they have never been measured. We aimed to assess the faecal MMP-9 levels in patients undergoing total colonoscopy according to endoscopic and histological diagnosis.

Methods:

One hundred and nine patients provided faecal samples for MMP-9 analysis. A total colonoscopy was performed; suspicious lesions were evaluated by histology. Faecal MMP-9 levels were measured by ELISA.

Results:

The number of patients allocated to different groups were: negative/diverticulosis: 34 (referred to as controls); hyperplastic polyps: 15; adenomas: 32 (22 at high risk); and CRC: 28. Faecal MMP-9 was significantly increased in CRC compared with all other groups (P<0.001). Faecal MMP-9 was suitable to distinguish CRC patients from controls (sensitivity: 89.3% specificity: 91.2%). By means of a lower cutoff level, faecal MMP-9 identified high-risk adenomas besides CRC (sensitivity: 76% specificity: 85.3%). This lower cutoff level screened 59% of high-risk adenomas.

Conclusions:

Faecal MMP-9 may be a promising new noninvasive marker in CRC.

Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality and is widely recommended. However, despite the demonstrated benefits of screening and ongoing efforts to improve screening rates, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened. Noninvasive stool based tests offer great opportunity to enhance screening uptake. The evidence supporting the use of both fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and stool DNA (sDNA) has been growing rapidly and both tests are now commercially available for use. Other stool biomarkers (eg, RNA and protein based) are also actively under study both for use independently and as adjuncts to the currently available tests. This mini review provides current, state of the art knowledge about noninvasive stool based screening. It includes a more detailed examination of those tests currently in use (ie, FIT and sDNA) but also provides an overview of stool testing options under development (ie, protein and RNA).

A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Patient decision aids are important tools for facilitating balanced, evidence-based decision making. However, the potential of decision aids to lower health care utilization and costs is uncertain; few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of decision aids that change patient behavior. Using an example of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening, we provide a framework for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of decision aids.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model with two strategies (decision aid or no decision aid) was used to calculate expected costs in U.S. dollars and benefits measured in life-years saved (LYS). Data from a systematic review of ten studies about decision aid effectiveness was used to calculate the percentage increase in the number of people choosing screening instead of no screening. We then calculated the incremental cost per LYS with the use of the decision aid.

RESULTS

The no decision aid strategy had an expected cost of $3023 and yielded 18.19 LYS. The decision aid strategy cost $3249 and yielded 18.20 LYS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the decision aid strategy was $36,126 per LYS. Results were sensitive to the cost of the decision aid and the percentage change in behavior caused by the decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides proof-of-concept evidence for future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of decision aids. The results suggest that decision aids can be beneficial and cost-effective.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cause of cancer-related death, it is fortunately amenable to screening with faecal tests for occult blood and endoscopic tests. Despite the evidence for the efficacy of guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT), they have not been popular with primary care providers in many jurisdictions, in part because of poor sensitivity for advanced colorectal neoplasms (advanced adenomas and CRC). In order to address this issue, high sensitivity gFOBT have been recommended, however, these tests are limited by a reduction in specificity compared with the traditional gFOBT. Where colonoscopy is available, some providers have opted to recommend screening colonoscopy to their patients instead of faecal testing, as they believe it to be a better test. Newer methods for detecting occult human blood in faeces have been developed. These tests, called faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), are immunoassays specific for human haemoglobin. FIT hold considerable promise over the traditional guaiac methods including improved analytical and clinical sensitivity for CRC, better detection of advanced adenomas, and greater screenee participation. In addition, the quantitative FIT are more flexible than gFOBT as a numerical result is reported, allowing customisation of the positivity threshold. When compared with endoscopy, FIT are less sensitive for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasms when only one time testing is applied to a screening population; however, this is offset by improved participation in a programme of annual or biennial screens and a better safety profile. This review will describe how gFOBT and FIT work and will present the evidence that supports the use of FIT over gFOBT, including the cost-effectiveness of FIT relative to gFOBT. Finally, specific issues related to FIT implementation will be discussed, particularly with respect to organised CRC screening programmes.

Development of new non-invasive tests for colorectal cancer screening: the relevance of information on adenoma detection

Researchers are actively pursuing the development of a new non-invasive test (NIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an alternative to fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). The majority of pilot studies focus on the detection of invasive CRC rather than precursor lesions (i.e., adenomas). We aimed to explore the relevance of adenoma detection for the viability of an NIT for CRC screening by considering a hypothetical test that does not detect adenomas beyond chance. We used the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer (SimCRC) to estimate the effectiveness of CRC screening and the lifetime costs (payers' perspective) for a cohort of US 50-years-old persons to whom CRC screening is offered from age 50-75. We compared annual screening with guaiac and immunochemical FOBTs (with sensitivities up to 70 and 24% for CRC and adenomas, respectively) to annual screening with a hypothetical NIT (sensitivity of 90% for CRC, no detection of adenomas beyond chance, specificity and cost similar to FOBTs). Screening with the NIT was not more effective, but was 29-44% more costly than screening with FOBTs. The findings were robust to varying the screening interval, the NIT's sensitivity for CRC, adherence rates favoring the NIT, and the NIT's unit cost. A comparative modelling approach using a model that assumes a shorter adenoma dwell time (MISCAN-COLON) confirmed the superiority of the immunochemical FOBT over an NIT with no ability to detect adenomas. Information on adenoma detection is crucial to determine whether a new NIT is a viable alternative to FOBTs for CRC screening. Current evidence thus lacks an important piece of information to identify marker candidates that hold real promise and deserve further (large-scale) evaluation.

[Colorectal cancer screening: evidence and implementation]

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer among both men and women in Germany. Owing to its relatively slow growth, perspectives for effective early detection are much better than for other forms of cancer.

AIM

To summarize the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening, and to provide an overview on the current state and perspectives for effective CRC screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summary and critical review of evidence from randomized trials and observational epidemiological studies.

RESULTS

A reduction in CRC mortality by offering annual fecal occult blood tests or once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy has been demonstrated in randomized trials. Novel fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin in stool have been shown to be more sensitive than traditional fecal occult blood tests and could substantially improve noninvasive CRC screening. Epidemiological studies suggest that the majority of CRC cases and deaths could be prevented by colonoscopy and removal of colorectal adenomas. However, adherence to screening offered outside organized screening programs is low. The National Cancer Plan recommends an organized CRC screening program in Germany. The law on the early detection of cancer from April 2013 has paved the way for its implementation.

DISCUSSION

The great potential for CRC prevention by early detection has so far only been realized to a very limited extent in Germany. Introduction of an organized screening program and the offer of enhanced noninvasive screening tests could strongly enhance the utilization and effectiveness of CRC screening in Germany. The political frame has been set, and timely quality-assured implementation is required.

The future of obstetrics/gynecology in 2020: a clearer vision. Transformational forces and thriving in the new system

Revamping the delivery of women's health care to meet future demands will require a number of changes. In the first 2 articles of this series, we introduced the reasons for change, suggested the use of the 'Triple Aim' concept to (1) improve the health of a population, (2) enhance the patient experience, and (3) control costs as a guide post for changes, and reviewed the transformational forces of payment and care system reform. In the final article, we discuss the valuable use of information technology and disruptive clinical technologies. The new health care system will require a digital transformation so that there can be increased communication, availability of information, and ongoing assessment of clinical care. This will allow for more cost-effective and individualized treatments as data are securely shared between patients and providers. Scientific advances that radically change clinical practice are coming at an accelerated pace as the underlying technologies of genetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, and molecular biology are translated into tools for diagnosis and treatment. Thriving in the new system not only will require time-honored traits such as leadership and compassion but also will require the obstetrician/gynecologist to become comfortable with technology, care redesign, and quality improvement.

Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival.

Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in adequately screened persons older than 75 years but does not address the appropriateness of screening in elderly persons without previous screening.

OBJECTIVE

To determine at what ages CRC screening should be considered in unscreened elderly persons and to determine which test is indicated at each age.

DESIGN

Microsimulation modeling study.

DATA SOURCES

Observational and experimental studies.

TARGET POPULATION

Unscreened persons aged 76 to 90 years with no, moderate, and severe comorbid conditions.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

One-time colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

In unscreened elderly persons with no comorbid conditions, CRC screening was cost-effective up to age 86 years. Screening with colonoscopy was indicated up to age 83 years, sigmoidoscopy was indicated at age 84 years, and FIT was indicated at ages 85 and 86 years. In unscreened persons with moderate comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 83 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 80 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 81 years, and FIT at ages 82 and 83 years). In unscreened persons with severe comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 80 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 77 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 78 years, and FIT at ages 79 and 80 years).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Results were most sensitive to assuming a lower willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

LIMITATION

Only persons at average risk for CRC were considered.

CONCLUSION

In unscreened elderly persons CRC screening should be considered well beyond age 75 years. A colonoscopy is indicated at most ages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Exploring the recent trend in esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality using comparative simulation modeling

BACKGROUND

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased five-fold in the United States since 1975. The aim of our study was to estimate future U.S. EAC incidence and mortality and to shed light on the potential drivers in the disease process that are conduits for the dramatic increase in EAC incidence.

METHODS

A consortium of three research groups calibrated independent mathematical models to clinical and epidemiologic data including EAC incidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER 9) registry from 1975 to 2010. We then used a comparative modeling approach to project EAC incidence and mortality to year 2030.

RESULTS

Importantly, all three models identified birth cohort trends affecting cancer progression as a major driver of the observed increases in EAC incidence and mortality. All models predict that incidence and mortality rates will continue to increase until 2030 but with a plateauing trend for recent male cohorts. The predicted ranges of incidence and mortality rates (cases per 100,000 person years) in 2030 are 8.4 to 10.1 and 5.4 to 7.4, respectively, for males, and 1.3 to 1.8 and 0.9 to 1.2 for females. Estimates of cumulative cause-specific EAC deaths between both sexes for years 2011 to 2030 range between 142,300 and 186,298, almost double the number of deaths in the past 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Through comparative modeling, the projected increases in EAC cases and deaths represent a critical public health concern that warrants attention from cancer control planners to prepare potential interventions.

IMPACT

Quantifying this burden of disease will aid health policy makers to plan appropriate cancer control measures. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 997-1006. ©2014 AACR.

Limited diagnostic value of microRNAs for detecting colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs have been demonstrated to play important roles in the development and progression of colorectal cancer. Several studies utilizing microRNAs as diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been reported. The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively and quantitatively summarize the diagnostic value of microRNAs for detecting colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for published studies that used microRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of microRNAs in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer were calculated using the bivariate random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was also generated to summarize the overall effectiveness of the test.

RESULT

Thirteen studies from twelve published articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odd ratio of microRNAs for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer were 0.81 (95%CI: 0.79-0.84), 0.78 (95%CI: 0.75-0.82), 4.14 (95%CI: 2.90- 5.92), 0.24 (95%CI: 0.19-0.30), and 19.2 (95%CI: 11.7-31.5), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.89.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that the microRNAs test might not be used alone as a screening tool for CRC. Combining microRNAs testing with other conventional tests such as FOBT may improve the diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC.

A simulation model of colorectal cancer surveillance and recurrence

Background

Approximately one-third of those treated curatively for colorectal cancer (CRC) will experience recurrence. No evidence-based consensus exists on how best to follow patients after initial treatment to detect asymptomatic recurrence. Here, a new approach for simulating surveillance and recurrence among CRC survivors is outlined, and development and calibration of a simple model applying this approach is described. The model’s ability to predict outcomes for a group of patients under a specified surveillance strategy is validated.

Methods

We developed an individual-based simulation model consisting of two interacting submodels: a continuous-time disease-progression submodel overlain by a discrete-time Markov submodel of surveillance and re-treatment. In the former, some patients develops recurrent disease which probabilistically progresses from detectability to unresectability, and which may produce early symptoms leading to detection independent of surveillance testing. In the latter submodel, patients undergo user-specified surveillance testing regimens. Parameters describing disease progression were preliminarily estimated through calibration to match five-year disease-free survival, overall survival at years 1–5, and proportion of recurring patients undergoing curative salvage surgery from one arm of a published randomized trial. The calibrated model was validated by examining its ability to predict these same outcomes for patients in a different arm of the same trial undergoing less aggressive surveillance.

Results

Calibrated parameter values were consistent with generally observed recurrence patterns. Sensitivity analysis suggested probability of curative salvage surgery was most influenced by sensitivity of carcinoembryonic antigen assay and of clinical interview/examination (i.e. scheduled provider visits). In validation, the model accurately predicted overall survival (59% predicted, 58% observed) and five-year disease-free survival (55% predicted, 53% observed), but was less accurate in predicting curative salvage surgery (10% predicted; 6% observed).

Conclusions

Initial validation suggests the feasibility of this approach to modeling alternative surveillance regimens among CRC survivors. Further calibration to individual-level patient data could yield a model useful for predicting outcomes of specific surveillance strategies for risk-based subgroups or for individuals. This approach could be applied toward developing novel, tailored strategies for further clinical study. It has the potential to produce insights which will promote more effective surveillance—leading to higher cure rates for recurrent CRC.

Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer

This paper aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness evidence, and to provide a critical appraisal of the methods used in the model-based economic evaluation of CRC screening and subsequent surveillance. A search strategy was developed to capture relevant evidence published 1999-November 2012. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation (NHS EED), EconLit, and HTA. Full economic evaluations that considered costs and health outcomes of relevant intervention were included. Sixty-eight studies which used either cohort simulation or individual-level simulation were included. Follow-up strategies were mostly embedded in the screening model. Approximately 195 comparisons were made across different modalities; however, strategies modelled were often simplified due to insufficient evidence and comparators chosen insufficiently reflected current practice/recommendations. Studies used up-to-date evidence on the diagnostic test performance combined with outdated information on CRC treatments. Quality of life relating to follow-up surveillance is rare. Quality of life relating to CRC disease states was largely taken from a single study. Some studies omitted to say how identified adenomas or CRC were managed. Besides deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken in some studies, but the distributions used for PSA were rarely reported or justified. The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies among people with confirmed adenomas are warranted in aiding evidence-informed decision making in response to the rapidly evolving technologies and rising expectations.

Colorectal cancer and Crohn's colitis: clinical implications from 313 surgical patients

BACKGROUND

The relation between Crohn's colitis (CC) and colorectal cancer is still controversial. Several case reports and retrospective studies have shown that patients with Crohn's disease (CD) have a 6- to 20-fold higher risk to develop CRC than does the normal population. The extent of disease (extensive colitis), presence of anal fistula, age > 40 years, strictures, and length of disease >10 years may be important determinants for increasing risk. Despite this evidence, other population-based studies have shown no increased risk of colon or rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate retrospectively factors that may predict the development of cancer.

METHODS

We searched the histopathologic database of the Digestive Surgery Unit at Careggi University Hospital for CC patients (January 1987 to September 2011) and identified 313 patients with CC who underwent surgery.

RESULTS

There are 11 (3.5 %) of adenocarcinomas. Multivariate analysis showed disease duration (p = 0.001), age at CD diagnosis (p = 0.002), distal localization (p = 0.045), and penetrating disease (p = 0.041) to be risk factors. Multivariate analysis showed that 40 patients who had undergone previous immunosuppressive therapy had a significant risk of developing CRC (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Crohn's colitis patients who require surgery are at higher risk for developing CRC, particularly those whose disease duration is >10 years, have distal localization, age at diagnosis was <40 years, and have penetrating disease. Previous immunosuppressive therapy should be better investigated. We recommend surgery for any patient presenting with colonic strictures.

Cost effectiveness of fecal DNA screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND

Fecal DNA (fDNA) testing is a noninvasive potential alternative to current colorectal cancer screening tests.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and quality assessment of studies of cost-effectiveness of fDNA as a colorectal cancer screening tool (compared with no screening and other screening modalities), and identified key variables that impinged on cost-effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination for cost-effectiveness studies of fDNA-based screening, published in English by September 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that undertook an economic evaluation of fDNA, using either a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis, compared with other relevant screening modalities and/or no screening were included. Additional inclusion criteria related to the presentation of data pertaining to model variables including time horizon, costs, fDNA performance characteristics, screening uptake, and comparators. A total of 369 articles were initially identified for review. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in the final review.

STUDY APPRAISAL

Data was abstracted on key descriptor variables including screening scenarios, time horizon, costs, test performance characteristics, screening uptake, comparators, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Quality assessment was undertaken using a standard checklist for economic evaluations. Studies cited by cost-effectiveness articles as the source of data on fDNA test performance characteristics were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Seven cost-effectiveness studies were included, from the USA (4), Canada (1), Israel (1), and Taiwan (1). Markov models (5), a partially observable Markov decision process model (1) and MISCAN and SimCRC (1) microsimulation models were used. All studies took a third-party payer perspective and one included, in addition, a societal perspective. Comparator screening tests, screening intervals, and specific fDNA tests varied between studies. fDNA sensitivity and specificity parameters were derived from 12 research studies and one meta-analysis. Outcomes assessed were life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained. fDNA was cost-effective when compared with no screening in six studies. Compared with other screening modalities, fDNA was not considered cost-effective in any of the base-case analyses: in five studies it was dominated by all alternatives considered. Sensitivity analyses identified cost, compliance, and test parameters as key influential parameters. In general, poor presentation of "study design" and "data collection" details lowered the quality of included articles.

LIMITATIONS

Although the literature searches were designed for high sensitivity, the possibility cannot be excluded that some eligible studies may have been missed. Reports (such as Health Technology Assessments produced by government agencies) and other forms of grey literature were excluded because they are difficult to identify systematically and/or may not report methods and results in sufficient detail for assessment.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the available (albeit limited) evidence, while fDNA is cost-effective when compared with no screening, it is currently dominated by most of the other available screening options. Cost and test performance appear to be the main influences on cost-effectiveness.