Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy

CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Detection: Integration Into Clinical Practice, From the AJR Special Series on Screening

CT colonography (CTC) is a CT examination, performed with low dose and typically without IV contrast media, optimized to detect colorectal polyps and cancer. Despite extensive supporting data, CTC has had variable acceptance and use over the past two decades, particularly for a main indication of colorectal cancer screening. CTC is now at an inflection point after the approval in 2025 by CMS for reimbursement of CTC performed for colorectal cancer screening. Widespread use of CTC for CRC screening could help increase screening adherence rates and prevent cancer incidence. Nonetheless, radiologists must incorporate emerging knowledge regarding polyps' natural history and recognition of sessile serrated lesions, to leverage the screening efficiencies of CTC-based screening. The purposes of this article are to describe the current status of CRC in the United States and United Kingdom with consideration of historical reasons that have limited the test's use along with recent events that may portend a marked change in the test's acceptance; to highlight the challenges and potential solutions toward successful widespread CTC implementation; and to present new concepts in CTC and CRC screening relevant to radiologists.

The Annual Cost of Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cancer has substantial health, quality-of-life, and economic impacts. Screening may decrease cancer mortality and treatment costs, but the cost of screening in the United States is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the annual cost of initial cancer screening (that is, screening without follow-up costs) in the United States in 2021.

DESIGN

Model using national health care survey and cost resources data.

SETTING

U.S. health care systems and institutions.

PARTICIPANTS

People eligible for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening with available data.

MEASUREMENTS

The number of people screened and associated health care system costs by insurance status in 2021 dollars.

RESULTS

Total health care system costs for initial cancer screenings in the United States in 2021 were estimated at $43 billion. Approximately 88.3% of costs were attributable to private insurance; 8.5% to Medicare; and 3.2% to Medicaid, other government programs, and uninsured persons. Screening for colorectal cancer represented approximately 64% of the total cost; screening colonoscopy represented about 55% of the total. Facility costs (amounts paid to facilities where testing occurred) were major drivers of the total estimated costs of screening.

LIMITATIONS

All data on receipt of cancer screening are based on self-report from national health care surveys. Estimates do not include costs of follow-up for positive or abnormal screening results. Variations in costs based on geography and provider or health care organization are not fully captured.

CONCLUSION

The $43 billion estimated annual cost for initial cancer screening in the United States in 2021 is less than the reported annual cost of cancer treatment in the United States in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Identification of cancer screening costs and their drivers is critical to help inform policy and develop programmatic priorities, particularly for enhancing access to recommended cancer screening services.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

CTC service heterogeneity and design of a workforce calculator

AIM

To determine the level of heterogeneity in delivery of computed tomography (CT) colonography services and develop a workforce calculator that accommodates the variation identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A national survey, based on the "WHO workforce indicators of staffing need", established activity standards for essential tasks in delivery of the service. From these data a workforce calculator was designed to guide the required staffing and equipment resource by service size.

RESULTS

Activity standards were established as mode responses >70%. Service homogeneity was greater in areas where professional standards and guidance were available. The mean service size was 1,101. Did not attend (DNA) rates were lower where direct booking was available (p<0.0001). Service sizes were larger where radiographer reporting was embedded in reporting paradigms (p<0.024).

CONCLUSION

The survey identified benefits of radiographer-led direct booking and reporting. The workforce calculator derived from the survey provides a framework to guide the resourcing of expansion while maintaining standards.

An AI-Based Colonic Polyp Classifier for Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Abdominal CT

Among the non-invasive Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approaches, Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC) and Virtual Colonoscopy (VC), are much more accurate. This work proposes an AI-based polyp detection framework for virtual colonoscopy (VC). Two main steps are addressed in this work: automatic segmentation to isolate the colon region from its background, and automatic polyp detection. Moreover, we evaluate the performance of the proposed framework on low-dose Computed Tomography (CT) scans. We build on our visualization approach, Fly-In (FI), which provides "filet"-like projections of the internal surface of the colon. The performance of the Fly-In approach confirms its ability with helping gastroenterologists, and it holds a great promise for combating CRC. In this work, these 2D projections of FI are fused with the 3D colon representation to generate new synthetic images. The synthetic images are used to train a RetinaNet model to detect polyps. The trained model has a 94% f1-score and 97% sensitivity. Furthermore, we study the effect of dose variation in CT scans on the performance of the the FI approach in polyp visualization. A simulation platform is developed for CTC visualization using FI, for regular CTC and low-dose CTC. This is accomplished using a novel AI restoration algorithm that enhances the Low-Dose CT images so that a 3D colon can be successfully reconstructed and visualized using the FI approach. Three senior board-certified radiologists evaluated the framework for the peak voltages of 30 KV, and the average relative sensitivities of the platform were 92%, whereas the 60 KV peak voltage produced average relative sensitivities of 99.5%.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening and healthcare resource utilization: a longitudinal analysis in Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-75 years

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we examined colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence in Medicare beneficiaries and associated healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and Medicare costs.

METHODS

Using 20% Medicare random sample data, the study population included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66-75 years on 1 January 2009, at average risk for CRC and continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A/B from 2008 to 2018. We excluded those who had undergone colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy during 2007-2008 and assumed everyone was due for screening in 2009; screening patterns were determined for 2009-2018. Based on US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, individuals were categorized as adherent to screening, inadequately screened or not screened. HCRU and Medicare costs were calculated as mean per patient per year (PPPY).

RESULTS

Of 895,846 eligible individuals, 13.2% were adherent to screening, 53.4% were inadequately screened, and 33.4% were not screened. Compared with those not screened, adherent or inadequately screened individuals were more likely to be female, White and have comorbidities. These individuals also used more healthcare services, generating higher Medicare costs. For example, physician visits were 14.6, 22.9 and 25.9 PPPY and total Medicare costs were $6102, $8469 and $9102 PPPY for those not screened, inadequately screened and adherent, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare beneficiaries at average risk, adherence to CRC screening was low, although the rate might be underestimated due to lack of early Medicare data. The link between HCRU and screening status suggests that screening initiatives independent of clinical visits may be needed to reach unscreened or inadequately screened individuals.

Incident colorectal cancer screening and associated healthcare resource utilization and Medicare cost among Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-75 years in 2016-2018

Background

While prevalence of up-to-date screening status is the usual reported statistic, annual screening incidence may better reflect current clinical practices and is more actionable. Our main purpose was to examine incident colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in Medicare beneficiaries and to explore characteristics associated with CRC screening.

Methods

Using 20% Medicare random sample data, the study population included 2016–2018 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries covered by Parts A and B aged 66–75 years at average CRC risk. For each study year, we excluded individuals who had a Medicare claim for a colonoscopy within 9 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy within 4 years, and multitarget stool DNA test (mt-sDNA) within 2 years prior; therefore, any observed screening during study year was considered an “incident screening”. Incident screening rates were calculated as number of incident screenings per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries. Overall rates were normalized to 2018 Medicare population distributions of age, sex, and race.

Results

Each year, > 1.4 million individuals met the inclusion/exclusion criteria from > 6.5 million Medicare beneficiaries. The overall adjusted incident CRC screening rate per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries increased from 85.2 in 2016 to 94.3 in 2018. Incident screening rates decreased 11.4% (22.9 to 20.3) for colonoscopy and 2.4% (58.3 to 56.9) for fecal immunochemical test/guaiac-based fecal occult blood test; they increased 201.5% (6.5 to 19.6) for mt-sDNA. The 2018 unadjusted rate was 76.0 for men and 110.4 for women. By race/ethnicity, the highest 2018 rate was for Asian individuals and the lowest rate was for Black individuals (113.4 and 72.8, respectively).

Conclusions

The 2016–2018 observed incident CRC screening rate in average-risk Medicare beneficiaries, while increasing, was still low. Our findings suggest more work is needed to improve CRC screening overall and, especially, among male and Black Medicare beneficiaries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08617-8.

Vector textures derived from higher order derivative domains for classification of colorectal polyps

Textures have become widely adopted as an essential tool for lesion detection and classification through analysis of the lesion heterogeneities. In this study, higher order derivative images are being employed to combat the challenge of the poor contrast across similar tissue types among certain imaging modalities. To make good use of the derivative information, a novel concept of vector texture is firstly introduced to construct and extract several types of polyp descriptors. Two widely used differential operators, i.e., the gradient operator and Hessian operator, are utilized to generate the first and second order derivative images. These derivative volumetric images are used to produce two angle-based and two vector-based (including both angle and magnitude) textures. Next, a vector-based co-occurrence matrix is proposed to extract texture features which are fed to a random forest classifier to perform polyp classifications. To evaluate the performance of our method, experiments are implemented over a private colorectal polyp dataset obtained from computed tomographic colonography. We compare our method with four existing state-of-the-art methods and find that our method can outperform those competing methods over 4%-13% evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves.

Use of Screening CT Colonography by Age and Race: A Study of Potential Access Barriers Related to Medicare Noncoverage Based on Data From the ACR's National CT Colonography Registry

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the use of screening CT colonography (CTC) examinations by age comparing individuals of Medicare-eligible age to younger cohorts and to determine if the association between use of CTC and Medicare-eligible age varies by race. Although the Affordable Care Act requires commercial insurance coverage of screening CTC, Medicare does not cover screening CTC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the ACR's CTC registry, the distribution of procedures by age was evaluated using a negative binomial model with patient age (to capture overall trend), indicator of Medicare-eligible age (to capture immediate changes in trend at age 65), and their interaction (to capture gradual changes after age 65) as independent variables. The association between the number of screening CTCs and age was compared by racial identity.

RESULTS

The CTC registry contained data on 12,648 screening examinations. Between ages 52 and 64, the number of screening examinations increased; each additional age year was associated with a 5.3% (P < .001) increase in the number of screenings. However, after age 65, the number of screening examinations decreased by -6.9% per additional year of age above 65 compared with the trend between ages 52 and 64 (P < .001). The modal age group for CTC use was 65 to 69 years in white and 55 to 59 in black individuals.

CONCLUSION

After age 65, the number of screening CTC examinations decreased, likely due, at least in part, to lack of Medicare coverage. Medicare noncoverage may have a disproportionate impact on black patients and other racial minorities.

Computer-aided diagnosis for characterization of colorectal lesions: comprehensive software that includes differentiation of serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopy guidelines recommend adhering to policies such as resect and discard only if the optical biopsy is accurate. However, accuracy in predicting histology can vary greatly. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for characterization of colorectal lesions may help with this issue. In this study, CAD software developed at the University of Adelaide (Australia) that includes serrated polyp differentiation was validated with Japanese images on narrow-band imaging (NBI) and blue-laser imaging (BLI).

METHODS

CAD software developed using machine learning and densely connected convolutional neural networks was modeled with NBI colorectal lesion images (Olympus 190 series - Australia) and validated for NBI (Olympus 290 series) and BLI (Fujifilm 700 series) with Japanese datasets. All images were correlated with histology according to the modified Sano classification. The CAD software was trained with Australian NBI images and tested with separate sets of images from Australia (NBI) and Japan (NBI and BLI).

RESULTS

An Australian dataset of 1235 polyp images was used as training, testing, and internal validation sets. A Japanese dataset of 20 polyp images on NBI and 49 polyp images on BLI was used as external validation sets. The CAD software had a mean area under the curve (AUC) of 94.3% for the internal set and 84.5% and 90.3% for the external sets (NBI and BLI, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAD achieved AUCs comparable with experts and similar results with NBI and BLI. Accurate CAD prediction was achievable, even when the predicted endoscopy imaging technology was not part of the training set.

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.

Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate.

RESULTS

Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I² = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I² = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size.

CONCLUSION

The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

Colorectal carcinoma screening: Established methods and emerging technology

Colorectal carcinoma screening programs have shown success in lowering both the incidence and mortality rate of colorectal carcinoma at a population level, in part because this carcinoma is relatively slow growing and has an identifiable premalignant lesion. Still, many patients do not undergo the recommended screening for colorectal carcinoma, and of those who do, a subset may be over- or under-diagnosed by the currently available testing methods. The primary purpose of this article is to review the data regarding currently available colorectal cancer screening modalities, which include fecal occult blood testing, direct colonic visualization, and noninvasive imaging techniques. In addition, readers will be introduced to a variety of biomarkers that may serve as stand-alone or adjunct tests in the future. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the current epidemiologic considerations that public health officials must address as they create population screening guidelines. The data we provide as laboratory physicians and scientists are critical to the construction of appropriate recommendations that ultimately decrease the burden of disease from colorectal carcinoma.

Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population

PURPOSE

To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations.

METHODS

388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding.

CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.

Yield and Cost-effectiveness of Computed Tomography Colonography Versus Colonoscopy for Post Colorectal Cancer Surveillance

Purpose. As part of a clinical trial comparing the utility of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) for post colorectal cancer resection surveillance, we explored the diagnostic yield and costs of a strategy of CTC followed by OC if a polyp is observed (abbreviated CTC_S), versus OC 1 year following curative bowel resection, using the detection of actionable polyps on OC as the criterion. Methods. Using data from 231 patients who underwent same-day CTC followed by OC, we created a decision tree that outlined the choices and outcomes at 1-year clinical follow-up. Colorectal polyp prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity of CTC were compared with five exemplary studies and meta-analyses. Detection criteria were derived for ≥6 mm or ≥10 mm polyps. OC was the gold standard. Costs were gleaned from cataloging components of the cases at the principal investigator’s institution. Analyses included marginal cost of the OC strategy to detect additional actionable polyps and number of polyps missed per 10,000 patients. Results. At our prevalence of 0.156 for ≥6 mm (0.043 ≥10 mm), CTC_S would miss 779 ≥6 mm actionable polyps per 10,000 patients (≥10 mm: 173 per 10,000). Cost to detect an additional ≥6 mm polyp in this cohort is $5,700 (≥10 mm: $28,000). Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that any improvement in performance characteristics would raise the cost of OC to detect more actionable polyps. Similar results were seen using Medicare costs, or when literature values were used for performance characteristics. Conclusion. At an action threshold of ≥6 mm, OC costs at least $5,700 per extra polyp detected relative to CTC_S in patients undergoing surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery, on the order of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios found for other clinical problems involving short-term events.

Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.

METHODS

Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.

RESULTS

In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.

Is the Virtual Colonoscopy a Replacement for Optical Colonoscopy?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the viability of colon cancer screening with computed tomography colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical guidelines, published medical research.

CONCLUSION

Virtual colonoscopy, under the right circumstances, is an accurate viable screening tool for patients who may not otherwise desire to or are not able to participate in traditional colonoscopy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses should be aware that routine colon cancer screening is recommended starting at age 50. In addition to the traditional colonoscopy, there are other options if a patient is unwilling or unable to undergo optical colon screening. Nurses should discuss the positive and negative aspects of different types of colon screening and teach proper bowel preparation for colon screening.

Imaging of colorectal cancer - the clue to individualized treatment

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common gastrointestinal neoplasm and the second most common cause for cancer-related death in Europe. Imaging plays an important role both in the primary diagnosis, treatment evaluation, follow-up, and, to some extent, also in prevention. Like in the clinical setting, colon and rectal cancer have to be distinguished as two quite separate entities with different goals of imaging and, consequently, also different technical requirements. Over the past decade, there have been improvements in both more robust imaging techniques and new data and guidelines that help to use the optimal imaging modality for each scenario. For colon cancer, the continued research on computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) has led to high-level evidence that puts this technique on eye height to optical colonoscopy in terms of detection of cancer and polyps ≥10 mm. However, also for smaller polyps and thus for screening purposes, CTC seems to be an optimal tool. In rectal cancer, the technical requirements to perform state-of-the art imaging have recently been defined. Evaluation of T-stage, mesorectal fascia infiltration and extramural vascular invasion are the most important prognostic factors that can be identified on MRI. With this information, risk stratification both for local and distal failure is possible, enabling the clinician to tailor the optimal therapeutic approach in non-metastatic rectal cancer. Imaging of metastatic CRC is also covered, although the complex ramifications of treatment options in the metastatic setting are beyond the scope of this article. In this review, the most important recent developments in the imaging of colon and rectal cancer will be highlighted. If used in an interdisciplinary setting, this can lead to an individualized treatment concept for each patient.

Accuracy of Combined Computed Tomography Colonography and Dual Energy Iiodine Map Imaging for Detecting Colorectal masses using High-pitch Dual-source CT

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined computed tomography colonography (CTC) and dual-energy iodine map imaging for detecting colorectal masses using high-pitch dual-source CT, compared with optical colonography (OC) and histopathologic findings. Twenty-eight consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients were underwent contrast-enhanced CTC acquisition using dual-energy mode and OC and pathologic examination. The size of the space-occupied mass, the CT value after contrast enhancement, and the iodine value were measured and statistically compared. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy rate, and positive predictive and negative predictive values of dual-energy contrast-enhanced CTC were calculated and compared between conventional CTC and dual-energy iodine images. The iodine value of stool was significantly lower than the colonic neoplasia (P < 0.01). The sensitivity of conventional CTC was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%), combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging was 95.6% (95% CI = 77.9%–99.2%). The specificity of the two methods was 42.8% (95% CI = 15.4%–93.5%) and 100% (95% CI = 47.9%–100%; P = 0.02), respectively. Compared with optical colonography and histopathology, combined CTC and dual-energy iodine maps imaging can distinguish stool and colonic neoplasia, distinguish between benign and malignant tumors initially and improve the diagnostic accuracy of CTC for colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. ^© RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer Using CT Colonography

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common cancer among throughout the world with the highest rates in developed countries such as the USA. There is ample evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of colorectal cancer screening and, largely thanks to screening initiatives and insurance coverage, epidemiologic analyses show a steady decline in both CRC incidence and mortality rates over the last several decades. However, screening rates for CRC in the US remain low and approximately 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years has not undergone any form of CRC screening, highlighting the need for additional accurate, minimally invasive, and acceptable screening options. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) has emerged as a viable alternative to existing CRC screening tests and research continues to enhance our knowledge regarding the ability of CTC to play a meaningful role in optimizing CRC screening in areas where it is available. This review highlights recent publications of salient research in the field of CTC. CTC continues to evolve, with lower radiation doses and greater evidence of its ability to identify clinical relevant colonic and extracolonic abnormalities. Recent evidence has bolstered the currently recommended CTC screening interval of 5 years and has reiterated the cost-effectiveness of CTC as a CRC screening examination. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests a role for CTC as a polyp and CRC surveillance modality as well as a preoperative adjunct in patients with established CRC. Data supporting the safety and patient acceptance of CTC also has continued to accumulate and CTC has recently been endorsed as an appropriate test for CRC screening in multiple important guidelines and recommendations. CTC is poised to become an important option in the CRC screening and surveillance arena.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Diagnostic Accuracy of CT for Local Staging of Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to determine the accuracy of CT in the detection of tumor invasion beyond the bowel wall and nodal involvement of colon carcinomas. A literature search was performed to identify studies describing the accuracy of CT in the staging of colon carcinomas. Studies including rectal carcinomas that were inseparable from colon carcinomas were excluded. Publication bias was explored by using a Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test. A hierarchic summary ROC model was used to construct a summary ROC curve and to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (ORs).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of a total of 13 studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ORs for detection of tumor invasion beyond the bowel wall (T3-T4) were 90% (95% CI, 83-95%), 69% (95% CI, 62-75%), and 20.6 (95% CI, 10.2-41.5), respectively. For detection of tumor invasion depth of 5 mm or greater (T3cd-T4), estimates from four studies were 77% (95% CI, 66-85%), 70% (95% CI, 53-83%), and 7.8 (95% CI, 4.2-14.2), respectively. For nodal involvement (N+), 16 studies were included with values of 71% (95% CI, 59-81%), 67% (95% CI, 46-83%), and 4.8 (95% CI, 2.5-9.4), respectively. Two studies using CT colonography were included with sensitivity and specificity of 97% (95% CI, 90-99%) and 81% (95% CI, 65-91%), respectively, for detecting T3-T4 tumors. CT has good sensitivity for the detection of T3-T4 tumors, and evidence suggests that CT colonography increases its accuracy. Discriminating between T1-T3ab and T3cd-T4 cancer is challenging, but data were limited. CT has a low accuracy in detecting nodal involvement.

2016 reflections on the favorable cost-benefit of lung cancer screening

This article gives a basic background on the confusing and often politicized topic of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare, using lung cancer screening as a case study. The authors are actuaries who work with the insurance industry, where real-world data is used to produce audited financial figures; other disciplines which work with cost-benefit analysis include those academic disciplines where randomized controlled trials may be perceived as the gold standard of evidence. In recent years, the finance and academic sectors of healthcare have begun to converge, as academic disciplines have come to increasingly appreciate real-world data, and insurers increasingly appreciate classical evidence-based medicine. Nevertheless, the variation of results in cost-benefit analyses for particular treatments can be bewildering to medical experts unfamiliar with real-world healthcare financing.